FTC, DOJ and HHS Extend RFI on Private Equity Control in Health Care Markets

The Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are extending the deadline by 30 days for the public to comment on a tri-agency Request for Information (RFI) examining private-equity and other corporations’ increasing control over health care markets. The new deadline is now June 5, 2024.

At Lanton Law not only do we understand the issues, but we provide you with timely solutions to help you make informed decisions about either an acquisition target or ways to maximize value. We counsel clients by performing corporate due diligence, provide strategic advice for growth and business strategies as well as structuring and executing M&A transactions.

Contact us today to learn more

New York Proposes New Cybersecurity Regulations for State Hospitals

On November 13, the Governor unveiled new cyber regulations for state hospitals. The Governor’s FY24 budget includes $500 million in funding that health care facilities may apply to upgrade their systems in order to comply. 

According to the release which can be read here states:

“The proposed regulations aim to strengthen the protections on hospital networks and systems that are critical to providing patient care, as a complement to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule that focuses on protecting patient data and health records. Under the proposed provisions, hospitals will be required to establish a cybersecurity program and take proven steps to assess internal and external cybersecurity risks, use defensive techniques and infrastructure, implement measures to protect their information systems from unauthorized access or other malicious acts, and take actions to prevent cybersecurity events before they happen.”

Lanton Law with offices in Boston and Washington D.C. is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that closely monitors legislative, regulatory and legal developments in the healthcare and technology spaces.

Contact us to learn about how either our legal or lobbying services can help you attain your goals.

Lanton Law Speaks at Summit & Reverse Expo

We were pleased to be invited to Orlando, Florida to speak with IDN with our presentation titled “Price, Innovation & Policy: What’s on the Horizon for the Industry.

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Medicare’s $1.6 Billion Reimbursement Reduction for Hospitals

The U.S. Supreme Court today has overturned the D.C. Circuit ruling that upheld the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services (HHS’) $1.6 billion annual reduction within the 340B program. In an opinion drafted by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court believed that HHS failed to gather a survey of hospital acquisition costs before deciding on the payment reductions at issue. 

Absent a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS may not vary the reimbursement rates only for 340B hospitals; HHS’s 2018 and 2019 reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals were therefore unlawful. The text and structure of the statute make this a straightforward case. Because HHS did not conduct a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS acted unlawfully by reducing the reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals. HHS maintains that even when it does not conduct a sur- vey, the agency still may “adjus[t]” the average price “as necessary.” §1395l(t)(14)(A)(iii)(II). But HHS’ power to increase or decrease the price is distinct from its power to set different rates for different groups of hospitals. Moreover, HHS’s interpretation would make little sense given the statute’s overall structure. Under HHS’s interpretation, the agency would never need to conduct a survey of acquisition costs if it could proceed under option 2 and then do everything under option 2 that it could do under option 1. That not only would render irrelevant the survey prerequisite for varying reimbursement rates by hospital group, but also would render largely irrelevant the provision of the statute that precisely details the requirements for surveys of hospitals’ acquisition costs. See §1395l(t)(14)(D). Finally, HHS’s argument that Congress could not have intended for the agency to “overpay” 340B hospitals for prescription drugs ignores the fact that Congress, when enacting the statute, was well aware that 340B hospitals paid less for covered prescription drugs. It may be that the reimbursement pay- ments were intended to offset the considerable costs of providing healthcare to the uninsured and underinsured in low-income and rural communities. Regardless, this Court is not the forum to resolve that policy debate.

The Court did not entertain the possibility of overturning Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which requires judicial deference to reasonable agency readings of ambiguous statutes, as the Court did not address this legal theory. 

The Court decision can be found here.

This is a big development for 340B stakeholders. 

Lanton Law is a national boutique healthcare and technology law and government affairs firm that closely monitors legislative, regulatory and legal developments for our clients. We help stakeholders understand what’s at issue so that we can help our valued clients achieve their priorities. Contact us to learn about how either our legal or lobbying services can help you attain your goals.    

President Biden Signs the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 Impacting Telehealth and Health System Stakeholders

On March 15, 2022 President Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 into law. The announcement can be viewed here. This $1.5 trillion omnibus appropriations bill is important as there are several provisions applicable to hospitals and health systems contained within; namely touching on issues such as 340B eligibility and telehealth. 

Specifically regarding 340B the bill allows for limited protections for certain 340B hospitals that lost their eligibility due to a drop in their disproportionate share hospitals (DSH) adjustment percentage below the required threshold for 340B eligibility to gain limited access to the program. Access to the 340B drug discounts would be available only from the date of the bill’s enactment through the end of 2022 and not retrospectively.

For telehealth stakeholders, the new law would extend several telehealth flexibilities for 151 days after the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency. Additionally, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) shall “conduct a study on the expansions of telehealth services” and report their findings to Congress no later than June 2023.

Stakeholders in these groups have a lot of uncertainty in their specific industries. 

Lanton Law is a national boutique healthcare and technology law and government affairs firm.  We closely monitor legislative, regulatory and legal developments for our clients. Contact us to learn about how either our legal or lobbying services can help you attain your goals.

Biden Administration Issues Interim Final Rule on Surprise Medical Billing

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in conjunction with the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor (DOL), Treasury (collectively, the Departments), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has issued an interim final rule with a comment period that seeks to implement the No Surprises Act aimed at surprise medical billing. 

According to the CMS announcement “This rule details a process that will take patients out of the middle of payment disputes, provides a transparent process to settle out-of-network (OON) rates between providers and payers, and outlines requirements for health care cost estimates for uninsured (or self-pay) individuals. Other consumer protections in the rule include a payment dispute resolution process for uninsured or self-pay individuals. It also adds protections in the external review process so that individuals with job-based or individual health plans can dispute denied payment for certain claims.”

The interim final rule can be viewed here.  

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life sciences and technology. 

If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions,contact us today.

New Louisiana Law Bans White Bagging

The Governor has enacted Act No. 50 effective June 1, which seeks to ban “white bagging” in the state. White bagging is when a drug is delivered from an insurer’s preferred pharmacy to a physician’s office. This new law which is the first of its kind in the country provides that insurers cannot refuse to pay for physician-administered drugs to covered patients. Similar legislation has been seen in Massachusetts, New York and Texas.

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life science and technology. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

Virginia on Track to Become Second Second State to Pass Data Privacy Laws

Lanton Law’s privacy practice has been closely monitoring the various state conversations around data privacy. We previously wrote a blog post titled California’s Consumer Privacy Act Could Be Coming to a State Near You, where we traced how California took the first step to create a consumer privacy law in the wake of Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation.    

So what’s going on with Virginia? Earlier this month the Virginia Senate passed 

 Senate Bill 1392, titled the Consumer Data Protection Act. The Virginia House of Delegates approved a companion (identical) House Bill H.B. 2307 by an 89-9 vote. Each bill likely will be heard in committee next week by the opposite chamber, which provides additional opportunities to make amendments. The state General Assembly will adjourn on March 1, it is expected that Governor Northam will sign the legislation. 

What does the bill do? The proposed legislation seeks the following:

“Establishes a framework for controlling and processing personal data in the Commonwealth. The bill applies to all persons that conduct business in the Commonwealth and either (i) control or process personal data of at least 100,000 consumers or (ii) derive over 50 percent of gross revenue from the sale of personal data and control or process personal data of at least 25,000 consumers. The bill outlines responsibilities and privacy protection standards for data controllers and processors. The bill does not apply to state or local governmental entities and contains exceptions for certain types of data and information governed by federal law. The bill grants consumer rights to access, correct, delete, obtain a copy of personal data, and to opt out of the processing of personal data for the purposes of targeted advertising. The bill provides that the Attorney General has exclusive authority to enforce violations of the law, and the Consumer Privacy Fund is created to support this effort. The bill has a delayed effective date of January 1, 2023.”

As with major policy issues that have yet to have a federal solution, states like California, Virginia and others are creating piecemeal policies, which will create compliance issues for entities that operate in several jurisdictions. New York, Oklahoma, Washington State, Minnesota, and North Dakota are jurisdictions that we continue to monitor with brewing policies on point.  

As we become more reliant on technology which crosses several sectors now, businesses are finding that they have to increase their awareness of state and federal policy in order to remain compliant. We at Lanton Law can help. Our legal and lobbying tools can help offer your organization a clear path forward to navigate what will be changing policies for healthcare, technology and clean energy stakeholders. We are a D.C. based firm with no state boundaries as we are active nationwide. Contact us today to discuss your options. 

Surprise Medical Billing Law Takes Effect January 1, 2022

The No Surprises Act was quietly a part of the omnibus spending bill that was signed into law on December 27, 2020 has caught several people by surprise (no pun intended). The law was created with the goal of shielding patients from receiving surprise medical bills after an emergency room or provider visit. Any disputes would now be left to their plan and provider to resolve via arbitration. 

Prior to the enactment of the No Surprises Act, state balanced billing laws have been debated throughout state legislatures, especially in 2020 when more patients were being admitted to hospitals during the start of the pandemic. According to the Commonwealth Fund: 

“Balance bills” primarily occur in two circumstances: 1) when an enrollee receives emergency care either at an out-of-network facility or from an out-of-network provider, or 2) when an enrollee receives elective nonemergency care at an in-network facility but is inadvertently treated by an out-of-network health care provider. Since the insurer does not have a contract with the out-of-network facility or provider, it may decide not to pay the entirety of the bill. In that case, the out-of-network facility or provider may then bill the enrollee for the balance of the bill. No federal law currently limits this practice, but 32 states have enacted laws to protect enrollees from it.” Click here for more on their analysis. 

If you are an insurer, employer, health system/hospital, physician or air ambulance operator, your interests are definitely impacted by this law. 

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life sciences and technology. 

With a law this new and complex, ensuring compliance will be key. Lanton Law is an expert in healthcare regulatory compliance and has tools to help. Contact us today for answers to your questions.

Lanton Law & Private Equity

With increasing mergers and acquisitions in both the technology and healthcare sectors, investment opportunities abound for funds and interested stakeholders. In order for these stakeholders to be successful it is essential to know the limits and opportunities within a complex regulatory landscape. 

At Lanton Law not only do we understand the issues, but we provide you with timely solutions to help you make informed decisions about either an acquisition target or ways to maximize value. 

We counsel clients by performing corporate due diligence, provide strategic advice for growth and business strategies as well as structuring and executing M&A transactions.

If you are a financial stakeholder including a private equity firm, hedge fund, bank, etc. we have a suite of strategic services that can help. Contact us today to learn more.

The Administration Releases Executive Order Targeting Insulin and Injectable Epinephrine via 340B

The White House has announced a few Executive Orders targeting healthcare. One Executive Order titled Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications targets insulin and injectable epinephrine by requiring federally qualified community health centers to pass through 340B program discounts to patients using insulin and epinephrine auto-injectors. 

Specifically the Executive Order outlines the following: 

“It is the policy of the United States to enable Americans without access to affordable insulin and injectable epinephrine through commercial insurance or Federal programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, to purchase these pharmaceuticals from an FQHC at a price that aligns with the cost at which the FQHC acquired the medication.

To the extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take action to ensure future grants available under section 330(e) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 254b(e), are conditioned upon FQHCs’ having established practices to make insulin and injectable epinephrine available at the discounted price paid by the FQHC grantee or sub-grantee under the 340B Prescription Drug Program (plus a minimal administration fee) to individuals with low incomes, as determined by the Secretary, who:

(a)  have a high cost sharing requirement for either insulin or injectable epinephrine;

(b)  have a high unmet deductible; or

(c)  have no health care insurance.”

This will be interesting to see how this gets enforced. The 340B program which is where manufacturers provide outpatient drugs to eligible healthcare entities at a reduced price has been embroiled in controversy the last several years between manufacturers and hospitals over pricing. This Order does not address hospital practices. 

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that focuses on healthcare/life sciences, technology and finance. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

The New Concerns of a Digital Workplace

We are honored to have worked with STACK for Pharmacy on a great and timely webinar titled “The New Concerns of a Digital Workplace. COVID-19 has changed the way that we work, communicate and transfer information and finances. We discuss the early trends of what we are seeing from a transitioning marketplace.

Click here to access the webinar

Upcoming Webinar with STACK and Lanton Law

STACK will be teaming up with Lanton Law to do an April 22, 2020 webinar at 1:00 PM EST titled “The New Concerns of a Digital Workplace.” Join Jonathan Ogurchak, Founder & CEO of STACK and Ron Lanton III, Esq, Principle of Lanton Law to discuss the following:

Challenges facing healthcare organizations with a rapid deployment to “work from home” environments

Considerations to ensure ongoing compliance and ensure appropriate use

Future areas for advancement related to the “new normal” organizations are likely to face

Click here to register

Lanton Law; Your Digital Lawyer & Lobbying Team

As organizational needs evolve right now, businesses are looking for innovative ways to become efficient and manage risks. 

For years our team at Lanton Law have been helping businesses around the country remotely with a variety of transactional needs. 

Legal services include but not limited to:

• Contract drafting, review and negotiation

• Due diligence in transactional matters

• Change of ownership

• Corporate governance matters

• Employment matters

• Privacy and data security 

• Leases

• Business strategy and growth objectives

• Day to day operational matters

• Litigation readiness and response

• Pre-litigation dispute resolutions such as arbitration and mediation

• Regulatory compliance 

• Acquisition due diligence/transfer of ownership

• Payor network access   

Additionally, our government affairs services include:

• Federal and state lobbying

• Strategic consulting

• Bill composition/bill check service

• Submitting regulatory comments

• Regulatory monitoring

Legislation to Play Significant Role in Drug Pricing Across Specialty Pharmacy

Jennifer Nessel of Pharmacy Times has featured Lanton Law in an article titled “Legislation to Play Significant Role in Drug Pricing Across Specialty Pharmacy.” The article can be read here. In case you have difficulty reading the article, we have featured it below. This article appeared in Pharmacy Times on 2/17/20.

As utilization and drug spending continue to rise, health care providers are looking to resolve key questions that address drug pricing and biosimilar implementation in specialty pharmacy.

Hospital and health systems saw nearly 20% growth in the specialty drug market in 2018, according to Becker’s Hospital Review.2 The diversity of specialty pharmacies has resulted in variability across all operational areas, including tracking adherence, educating patients, dispensing medications, and ensuring drug safety.3

However, although the specialty industry has had a positive impact on health systems’ quality and continuity of care initiatives, the administration of specialty drugs is challenging and highly complex given the number of new therapies and payer requirements.

According to Ron Lanton, III, Esq, principal of Lanton Law and biologics committee chair of the New York State Bar Association, policymakers on the federal level understand that the issue of drug pricing needs to be resolved but they are having a hard time coming to an agreement on how this reform should be done.

The Drug Price Conundrum
Due to the fact that the legislative session has recently begun in many states and in Congress and that it is an election year, it is difficult to determine whether there will be a unifying drug-legislative solution for drug prices.

However, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) has recently proposed that California become the first US state to manufacture its own generic prescription label, with a goal of making affordable medications available to the state’s almost 40 million residents. However, the governor’s proposal has yet to pass the California legislature.

According to Lanton, a manufacturer could leverage its influence over smaller states to stop legislation such as Governor Newsom’s from advancing. However, due to its size and the fact that its policies may influence other state legislatures, California may be a harder market for a manufacturer to confront.

“I [have to] question as to whether California’s efforts would further drive down an already deflated generic drug market and whether California would be able to determine how much it will charge for generics once manufacturing costs, such as raw materials, are concerned. Not to mention how much this is going to cost since that remains unknown at this point in time,” Lanton explained to Directions in Specialty PharmacyTM.  

Although the proposal marks the first state-wide attempt to lower prescription drug prices, there have been attempts within federal legislation to corral drug prices. The Trump administration recently attempted to lower drug costs through its Blueprint to Lower Drug Costs, and the FDA has recently been an advocate for greater generic and biosimilar utilization.

“To date, there has been no silver bullet to deal with rising prescription drug costs. Notwithstanding whether I agree with this plan, I applaud California in trying to solve a problem that refuses to go away quietly,” Lanton said.

Biosimilar Implementation
Specialty drugs, with nearly 700 therapies currently under development for treatment areas such as cancer, hepatitis C virus, HIV, autoimmune disorders, and multiple sclerosis, are expected to claim 9 of the top 10 spots among bestselling drugs in 2020.3 Although specialty drugs have been hallmarked as important treatment options for patients with cancer or other complex diseases, there can be issues surrounding access and affordability.

The cost of specialty medications and the increased adoption of high-deductible health plans have placed a higher financial burden on patients. As out-of-pocket costs increase, including insurance denials, patients are more likely to abandon their treatment plans.4

Biosimilars are potentially more affordable specialty medications for patients with complex disease states. According to Managed Health Executive, biosimilars could bring approximately $250 billion in savings by 2024.3

Pending legislation may have a large impact on biosimilar implementation across the specialty pharmacy landscape. There are several bills that Lanton singled out for the 2020 year1:
 

• HR 4597 Acting to Cancel Co-pays and Ensure Substantial Savings for Biosimilars (ACCESS) Act would eliminate a patient’s co-pay for a biosimilar if they normally would pay full cost of a biologic drug under Medicare Part B. The bill seeks to drive down medical costs by increasing access to lower-cost biosimilar drugs and give Americans more treatment options.

• HR 4629 Star Rating for Biosimilar Act would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to add a new set of measures to the 5-star rating system under the Medicare Advantage program in order to encourage increased access to biosimilar biological products.

• HR 4913 would require Medicare prescription drug plan (PDP) formularies to include covered generic drugs and biosimilars for which the wholesale acquisition cost is less than that of the reference (ie, brand-name) product. PDP sponsors must also establish specific cost-sharing tiers that apply lower cost-sharing requirements for such covered generic drugs and biosimilars as compared to those for brand-name products. The bill also prohibits PDP sponsors from instituting certain requirements relating to access to such covered generic drugs and biosimilars that are more restrictive than those for brand-name products (eg, prior authorization requirements).

• HR 2375 would prohibit prescription drug companies from compensating other prescription drug companies to delay the entry of a generic drug, biosimilar biological product, or interchangeable biological product into the market.

• S 1681 proposes to educate health care providers and the public on biosimilar biological products. Under this bill, the Secretary shall establish, maintain, and operate a website consisting of educational materials regarding the meaning and use of biosimilar biological products and interchangeable biological products.

Affordable Care Act (ACA) Transition 
On March 23, 2020, the life sciences industry will undergo “the transition,” according to Lanton. Currently, the FDA has and will continue to regulate biologics, but historically the agency regulated biologics as drugs under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act instead of as products licensed under the Public Health Service (PHS) Act.

“In order to bring all biologics under the same legal and regulatory system, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 found in the ACA included the ‘Deemed to be a License’ provision,” Lanton said.

This meant that 10 years after enactment, on March 23, 2020, applicable biologics will automatically be deemed biologics licensed under the PHS Act. Unfortunately, the statute did not provide instructions to the FDA on how to do this, meaning the agency will decide on which products transition and how, according to Lanton.

“This basically means no more new drug applications or abbreviated new drug applications for select biologics, only biologic license applications of the 351(a) and 351(k) varieties. Also, not only will they be categorized as biologic[s], but they will be subject to the biosimilar, not generic competition. Specifically, drugs [to] be transitioned are insulins and other naturally occurring proteins, such as hyaluronidase, human growth hormones, and menotropins,” Lanton said.

Reference

1. Lanton, Ron, III, Esq. Interview with Pharmacy Times [email]. Accessed February 11, 2020.

2. 5 Trends Health System Pharmacies Can Expect in 2020. Becker’s Hospital Review. Published December 9, 2020. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/5-trends-health-system-pharmacies-can-expect-in-2020.html. Accessed February 12, 2020.

3. Biologics Build Oncology Drug Pipeline. Managed Healthcare Executive. Published November 1, 2019. https://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/news/biologics-build-oncology-drug-pipeline. Accessed February 12, 2020.

4. Galante, Dominic. Accreditation Explosion Among Top Specialty Pharmacy Trends. J Clin Pathways. 2018;4(7):35-38. doi:10.25270/JCP.2018.09.00037. Accessed February 12, 2020.

With the Debate Over Data Privacy Increasing, Senator Gillibrand Proposes Legislation to Create New Data Protection Agency

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has announced the creation of new legislation titled the Data Protection Act. According to the Senator’s press release, the bill would create “the Data Protection Agency (DPA), an independent federal agency that would protect Americans’ data, safeguard their privacy, and ensure data practices are fair and transparent. 

The DPA will have the authority and resources to effectively enforce data protection rules—created either by itself or congress—and would be equipped with a broad range of enforcement tools, including civil penalties, injunctive relief, and equitable remedies. The DPA would promote data protection and privacy innovation across public and private sectors, developing and providing resources such as Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) that minimize or even eliminate the collection of personal data. The U.S. is one of the only democracies, and the only member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), without a federal data protection agency.”

The proposed bill will have three core missions:

• Give Americans control and protection over their own data by creating and enforcing data protection rules

• Maintain the most innovative, successful tech sector in the world by ensuring fair competition within the digital marketplace

• Prepare the American government for the digital age

Governmental oversight into data is showing no signs of slowing down. Gone are the days where you don’t have to worry about regulations in order to operate. If you are a healthcare, technology and financial services stakeholder, data privacy will be the most important issue to overcome within the next 10-20 years. Ensuring against breaches of personally identifiable information (PII), protected health information (PHI), personally identifiable financial information (PIFI), and other sensitive data will be key to compliance, trust and market competitiveness. Contact Lanton Law so that our experts can use their advocacy and legal services to help you prepare and succeed in a more interconnected world.   

Private Equity Presence Grows in Physician Practices As Well As Congressional Scrutiny

The Changing Market

As the consolidation of independent physician practices continues, one finds that there is a new player in the corporatization of medicine. While hospitals, health systems and insurers continue to make physician practice acquisitions, these entities suddenly find themselves competing against private equity firms.

Several physicians are finding themselves struggling in today’s reimbursement landscape. Whether you are in orthopedics, oncology, dermatology, urology, women’s health and gastroenterology for example, not only are reimbursement pressures much worse than in prior years, but transitioning to value based care has caused these and other physician practices to struggle with acquiring specialized personnel, new workflows and innovative technology.

What is Private Equity?

Private equity firms are backed by money from high net worth individuals, sovereign wealth funds, pensions funds, etc. that seek to invest in specialized sectors for an average return of 20% within 5-7 years. Once these firms take a majority stake in these practices and scale down costs to make the practice efficient, these same firms exit their positions after a short period while the remaining physician owners profit from the resale. The goal is to target a market, region or to create a multi-specialty practice. Besides the goal of financial returns, these firms can use their market clout to negotiate better rates and compete for more contracts with payers. 

To date, there are many questions surrounding private equity firms purchasing physician practices. Do they improve patient outcomes? Do all employees within these new scaled practices work for the private equity firm? What legal liabilities exist for the physicians? Are physicians considered owners or employees in these newly acquired entities? 

Private Equity Transactions Debated by Congress

Transactions such as the ones described above are now being debated by Congress. The House Ways and Means Committee is debating whether transparency is warranted by private equity firm ownership of physician practices. Should these firms have to file disclosures with the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) on Medicare payments, as well as provider rents and mortgages? Additionally, the question of whether an increase in patient surprise billing is the result of private equity ownership is also currently being examined.    

How Can Lanton Law Help?

Lanton Law’s advocacy and legal services  can help physician practices think about your options in this changing marketplace. If your position is not to sell your firm, we can help you with both legal and advocacy options that will assist with better reimbursement and network access. If you are thinking of selling your practice we can help walk you through your strategies. Once you sell, your practice will transition not only operationally, but also how you care for your patients. Not having complete managerial control will likely occur after the transaction so making sure that you sell to the right stakeholder is crucial. Contact us today for more information.  

Surprise Medical Billing: What is it and what’s being done to stop it?

Surprise medical billing is an issue that has been widespread for a while, but due to social media and more intense scrutiny, we are now seeing the effects of how common this problem is among patients accessing our healthcare system. According to a study by Kaiser “roughly 1 of every 6 emergency room visits and inpatient hospital stays in 2017, patients came home with at least one out-of-network medical bill.” The question is what is surprise medical billing?

Surprise medical bills generally have two components. The first component is the higher amount the patient owes under her health plan, reflecting the difference in cost-sharing levels between in-network and out-of-network services. 

The second component of surprise medical bills is an additional amount the physician or other provider may bill the patient directly, a practice known as “balance billing.” Typically, health plans negotiate discounted charges with network providers and require them to accept the negotiated fee as payment-in-full. Network providers are prohibited from billing plan enrollees the difference (or balance) between the allowed charge and the full charge. Out-of-network providers, however, have no such contractual obligation. As a result, patients can be liable for the balance bill in addition to any applicable out-of-network cost sharing.

To illustrate a patient can find his or herself in a situation where the patient needs emergency care but cannot select the emergency room or the ambulance provider in a certain situation. Another instance is where a patient knowingly goes to an in-network hospital to receive surgery but does not know that an anesthesiologist is an out of network provider.   

So what’s being done about this? 

The Administration:

Last May, the Administration released a fact sheet on medical billing that advocated for the following: 

• In emergency situations, balance billing for amounts above the in-network allowed amount should be prohibited.

• Before scheduling their care, patients should be given information about whether the care providers are out of their network and what related costs that may bring.

Congress:

In Congress there have been bills this session to combat surprise medical billing, but these solutions have differing philosophical approaches. For example one method calls on the use of arbitration, where an insurer and a provider would advance a proposed payment rate for the service provided to the patient and then an independent arbiter would adjudicate a fair price. On the other hand insurers have been advocating for benchmark payment rates as a solution to surprise medical billing where benchmark payment rates would ensure that providers are paid a standard rate for out-of-network services provided.

H.R. 3630: This bill sponsored by Rep. Pallone (D-NJ) expands restrictions on charging health care plan holders out-of-network rates for certain services. First, the bill requires insurers offering plans that cover emergency services to bill plan holders no more than the median in-network rate for a particular emergency service, even if the service provider is out of network. The bill further prohibits insurers from billing plan holders more than the median in-network rate for nonemergency services provided by out-of-network providers at in-network facilities. Out-of-network providers may not bill plan holders for the difference between the in-network and out-of-network rates for emergency services. The bill further prohibits out-of-network providers from billing plan holders for the difference in rates for nonemergency services provided at an in-network facility unless the provider complies with specified notice and consent requirements. 

S. 1895: This bill sponsored by Senator Alexander (R-TN) applies in-network cost-sharing requirements to certain emergency and related nonemergency services that are provided out-of-network, and prohibits health care facilities and practitioners from billing above the applicable in-network cost-sharing rate for such services. Additionally, it requires health care facilities and practitioners to give patients a list of provided services upon discharge and to bill for such services within 45 days.

Most recently, two U.S. House Committees have moved forward with additional possible solutions to this issue. The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee released a surprise billing plan, that calls for a dispute resolution process between the insurer and the provider. This bill does not address patients who are billed for air ambulance rides but does require providers to share cost data and insurers to share claims data to the Department of Health and Human Services. If enacted this language would be effective in 2022. 

The U.S. House Education and Labor Committee has released its proposal that is similar with what the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) proposed in December 2019, where insurers would pay out-of-network providers the median in-network rate for that geographic area for amounts up to $750. For larger amounts, either side could request an arbitration process. When a patient receives a surprise bill from an air ambulance provider, the threshold would be $25,000. Both House committees plan to discuss their respective bills this week. 

State Legislative Protections:

States have created their own but varied approaches to surprise medical billing. According to an analysis by The Commonwealth Fund, 28 states have enacted laws to protect enrollees against this issue. Last year Colorado, Nevada, Texas and Washington State passed enhanced or new surprise medical billing laws.   

Conclusion

In conclusion, this issue will continue to be debated in the states until there is a federal solution. With this being an election year, it is uncertain as to whether this issue will pass Congress. While this issue can be a bi-partisan victory for patients nationwide, it is also questionable as to whether either the Democrats or Republicans are willing to give the other side a share in a political victory during the crucial 2020 election season.