Holland & Hart's Health Law Blog
  • Publications
  • Webinar Recordings
    • 2026 Webinar Recordings
    • 2025 Webinar Recordings
    • 2024 Webinar Recordings
    • 2023 Webinar Recordings
    • 2022 Webinar Recordings
    • 2021 Webinar Recordings
    • 2020 Webinar Recordings
    • 2019 Webinar Recordings
    • 2018 Webinar Recordings
    • 2017 Webinar Recordings
    • 2016 Webinar Recordings
  • Compliance Bootcamps
  • Attorneys
  • Healthcare Law
  • Employers’ Lawyers Blog
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Physician Contract Checklist

September 15, 2015/in Contracts & Transactions, Physician Practices

by Kim C. Stanger, Holland & Hart LLP

Regulatory Compliance. If the physician will be performing or referring items or services payable by government healthcare programs, you should generally structure the contract to satisfy applicable safe harbors under the federal Ethics in Patient Referrals Act (“Stark”), 42 CFR 411.355 or 411.357(c), (d) or (l), and the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), 42 CFR 1001.952(d) or (i). For information concerning those regulatory requirements, see our Client Alert, Stark Requirement for Physician Contracts. In addition, the federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law generally prohibits hospitals from offering inducements to physicians to limit services payable by government programs. (42 USC 1320a-7a(b)(1); 42 CFR 1003.102). If you are a tax-exempt entity, you will also want to ensure the compensation reflects fair market value to avoid 501(c)(3) tax issues. If your state recognizes the corporate practice of medicine doctrine, you may need to structure your arrangement to fulfill any unique requirements applicable to your state.

Written Agreement. Stark and AKS safe harbors generally require current written contracts for independent contractors. Although written contracts are not required for the employee safe harbors, it is usually a good idea to document the arrangement to avoid disputes, especially if there are special compensation requirements, employment is other than “at-will”, or you wish to include a restrictive covenant. Read more

https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2015-09-15 08:40:232015-09-15 08:40:23Physician Contract Checklist

HHS Issues New Rule Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sex and Requiring Interpreters

September 9, 2015/in Health Care Reform, Nondiscrimination, Interpreters and Translators

by Pia Dean, Holland & Hart LLP

On September 3, 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a proposed rule intended to advance health equity and reduce disparities in health care. Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the first federal civil rights law to prohibit discrimination, including denial of health services or health coverage, on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex. The proposed rule, Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities, codifies and expounds on the these protections. The proposed rule applies to any health program or activity which receives funding from HHS, such as providers that accept Medicare or Medicaid patients. In addition, it applies to individuals enrolled in coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplaces (commonly referred to as “Exchanges”) and to all health plans offered by insurers that operate in Exchanges. Read more

https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2015-09-09 08:17:342015-09-09 08:17:34HHS Issues New Rule Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sex and Requiring Interpreters

Medical Record Retention

August 21, 2015/in Hospitals & Health Systems, Physician Practices

by Kim C. Stanger, Holland & Hart LLP

I am often asked how long a practice must maintain medical records. The answer depends on the type of provider you are and your risk tolerance. Providers should generally consider the following in establishing their record retention policies:

1. Patient care. The primary consideration should be patient care. Some practices (e.g., oncology) may want to retain medical records longer than the relevant regulatory requirement or statute of limitations period because the records may be important to future patient care. If your electronic records program allows, you may want to retain the records permanently.

2. Statutory or Regulatory Requirements. State and federal regulations require hospitals and certain other institutional providers to maintain medical records for specified periods, but those laws usually do not apply directly to physicians or physician groups. There are numerous guides online. For example, HealthIT.gov published a 50-state survey of record retention requirements at http://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/appa7-1.pdf. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare published a helpful but incomplete summary of federal record retention regulations, which may be accessed at http://healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/Portals/0/Medical/LicensingCertification/RecordRetentionReqs.pdf. CMS published a MedLearn article on record retention at https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/SE1022.pdf. AHIMA is usually a good source for online guidance about record retention laws and regulations. Read more

https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2015-08-21 08:29:152015-08-21 08:29:15Medical Record Retention

US District Court Decision Provides Cautionary Tale on False Claim Act Requirement to Return Identified Overpayments from Medicare or Medicaid

August 6, 2015/in Fraud and Abuse

by Pia Dean, Holland & Hart LLP

A recent ruling from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is the first decision regarding the requirement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to return identified overpayments from Medicare and Medicaid within 60 days and provides a cautionary tale about the failure to do so. The Court’s opinion offers clarification about when the 60-day “report and repay” provision of the ACA starts and underscores the importance of identifying and acting on a notice of improper payments in a timely manner.

Background

The action stems from a computer glitch on the part of Healthfirst, Inc. (Healthfirst), a private, non-profit insurance program. The glitch caused three New York City hospitals to submit improper claims to Medicaid for services rendered to beneficiaries of a managed care program administered by Healthfirst. All three hospitals belong to a network of non-profit hospitals operated and coordinated by Continuum Health Partners, Inc. (Continuum). Read more

https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2015-08-06 10:49:422015-08-06 10:49:42US District Court Decision Provides Cautionary Tale on False Claim Act Requirement to Return Identified Overpayments from Medicare or Medicaid

Recruiting Physicians: Beware Stark, Anti-Kickback Statutes, and IRS Rules

July 28, 2015/in Fraud and Abuse

by Kim C. Stanger, Holland & Hart LLP

Hospitals and other entities that offer incentives to recruit physicians must ensure their arrangements comply with federal and state laws governing financial relationships with physicians, including the the Ethics in Patient Referrals Act (“Stark”), Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), and the IRS’s 501(c)(3) requirements. Recruitment arrangements usually need to fit within one of the following safe harbors:

1. Employment Arrangements. If you are going to hire the physician as an employee and pay him or her no more than fair market value, you can structure the deal to fit within Stark’s bona fide employment safe harbor, which requires the following:

  • The employment must be for identifiable services.
  • The compensation (including benefits, housing, relocation reimbursement, stipends, and anything else of value given to the physician) must be consistent with fair market value.
  • The compensation may not take into account the volume or value of referrals. For example, you may not compensate the physician based on, or give the physician a percentage of, services performed by other persons or ancillary tests ordered by the physician. You may, however, compensate the physician based on services the physician personally performs.

(42 CFR 411.357(c)). Under the employment safe harbor, you are not required to have a written agreement or establish the compensation formula in advance, but it is generally a good idea to do so to avoid misunderstandings. Complying with the foregoing Stark parameters should also satisfy the AKS and 501(c)(3) rules. (See 42 CFR 1001.952(i); IRS Healthcare Provider Reference Guide, 2004 EO CPE Text at p.18). If you need to pay more than fair market value or provide additional incentives to recruit the physician, you will likely need to structure the deal to satisfy the Stark recruitment safe harbor described below. Read more

https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2015-07-28 13:43:492015-07-28 13:43:49Recruiting Physicians: Beware Stark, Anti-Kickback Statutes, and IRS Rules
Page 39 of 49«‹3738394041›»

Idaho Patient Act Timeline


View our Idaho Patient Act Timeline Guide

Holland & Hart

This blog is maintained by the Health Law practice group of Holland & Hart LLP. Visit the Holland & Hart website.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Enter your Email:

Contact

If you have any questions, please contact Kim Stanger.

More COVID-19 Articles


View more COVID-related articles on our Labor & Employment Blog

Categories

Archives

Disclaimer

This publication is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal or financial advice nor do they necessarily reflect the views of Holland & Hart LLP or any of its attorneys other than the author. This publication is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Holland & Hart LLP. Substantive changes in the law subsequent to the date of this publication might affect the analysis or commentary. Similarly, the analysis may differ depending on the jurisdiction or circumstances. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.

Privacy Policy

View our privacy policy.

© Copyright 2026 | Holland & Hart LLP - Enfold WordPress Theme by Kriesi
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top