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.
May our group offer free screenings?
/in Fraud and Abuseby Kim Stanger, Holland & Hart LLP
As with other free or discounted items or services, offering free screenings can violate (1) the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) if one purpose of the free screening is induce referrals for items or services payable by federal healthcare programs (42 USC § 1320a-7b), and/or (2) the federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law (“CMP”) if the physician knows or should know that the free screening is likely to induce a federal program beneficiary to purchase items or services covered by federal healthcare programs (42 USC § 1320a-7a). There are several potentially relevant CMP exceptions, most of which focus on whether the screening is tied to the provision of other services payable by federal healthcare programs. In Advisory Opinion 09-11, the OIG approved a hospital’s free blood pressure screening program where (1) the free screening was not conditioned on the use of any other goods or services from the hospital; (2) the patient receiving the screening was not directed to any particular provider; (3) the hospital did not offer the patient any special discounts on follow-up services; and (4) if the screening was abnormal, the patient as advised to see their own health care professional. Under these circumstances, the OIG concluded that the test was not improperly tied to the provision of other services by the hospital.
For more information, see the OIG’s Special Advisory Bulletin: Offering Gifts and Other Inducements to Beneficiaries (August 2002), available at https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/docs/alertsandbulletins/SABGiftsandInducements.pdf.
For questions regarding this update, please contact:
Kim C. Stanger
Holland & Hart, 800 W Main Street, Suite 1750, Boise, ID 83702
email: kcstanger@hollandhart.com, phone: 208-383-3913
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.
HIPAA Omnibus Rule: Checklist for Compliance
/in HIPAAby Kim Stanger, Holland & Hart LLP
The new HIPAA omnibus rule modifies the privacy and security rules for covered entities (including health care providers and health plans), and their business associates. Although the new rules are effective March 26, 2013, covered entities and business associates generally have until September 23, 2013 to comply.1 Before then, covered entities and business associates need to do the following:
The OCR has published updated sample business associate language at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/contractprov.html. The omnibus rule confirms that covered entities are liable for the misconduct of business associates if the business associate is acting as the agent of the covered entity.10 To minimize their exposure, covered entities and business associates should ensure their agreements confirm that their business associates and subcontractors are acting as independent contractors and not as the agents of the covered entity or business associate, and that the agreements do not give the covered entity too much control over day-to-day operations of the business associate.11 Covered entities may also want to include indemnification or similar clauses to protect themselves. Covered entities have up to September 22, 2014 to modify business associate agreements if (1) the agreement they had in place on January 25, 2013, complied with the HIPAA rules as of that date, and (2) the agreement does not expire or renew (other than through evergreen clauses) prior to September 22, 2014.12
Resources. To assist clients in complying with the new omnibus rule and HIPAA in general, I have prepared sample Privacy Rule policies, forms, and agreements. If you would like to obtain a set of the sample documents, please contact me at kcstanger@hollandhart.com.
145 CFR § 160.105
2Id. at § 164.104(b)
3Id. at § 164.103
4Id. at §§ 164.302 to .316
5Id. at § 164.502(a)(3)
6Id. at § 164.502 to .528
7Id. at § 164.410
8Id. at § 164.103
9Id. at § 164.314(a)(2) and .502(e)(1)
10Id. at § 164.402(c)
11See 78 FR 5581
1245 CFR § 164.532(e)
13Id. at § 164.510(b)(5)
14Id. at § 164.524(c)(2)(ii)
15Id. at § 164.524(c)(3)(ii)
16Id. at § 164.524
17Id. at § 164.522(a)(1)(vi)
18Id. at § 164.512(b)(1)(vi)
19Id. at § 164.502(a)(5)(ii) and .508(a)(4)
20Id. at § 164.501 and .508(c)
21Id. at § 164.514(f)
22Id. at § 164.402
23 Id. at § 164.520(b)(1)(ii)(E)
24Id. at § 164.520(b)(1)(ii)(E)
25Id. at § 164.520(b)(1)(iii)
26Id. at § 164.520(b)(1)(iv)(A)
27Id. at § 164.520(b)(1)(V)(A)
28 Id. at § 164.530(b)
For questions regarding this update, please contact
Kim C. Stanger
Holland & Hart, U.S. Bank Plaza, 101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite 1400, Boise, ID 83702-7714
email: kcstanger@hollandhart.com, phone: 208-383-3913
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.
HHS Issues New HIPAA Omnibus Rule
/in HIPAAby Kim Stanger, Holland & Hart LLP
HHS issued the new HIPAA omnibus rule yesterday. The new rule contains important changes for health care providers and their business associates. For example, the new rule:
The new rules take effect March 23, 2013, but covered entities and business associates will have until September 23, 2013 to comply. Before then, providers will need to take certain actions to remain compliant, including:
Business associates will also need to implement HIPAA privacy and security policies and safeguards applicable to business associates. HHS estimates that complying with the new requirements will cost affected parties a total of $114 million to $225 million during the first year. The new rule can be accessed at: http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2013-01073_PI.pdf. HHS’s press release can be accessed at www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/01/20130117b.html.
For questions regarding this update, please contact
Kim C. Stanger
Holland & Hart, U.S. Bank Plaza, 101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite 1400, Boise, ID 83702-7714
email: kcstanger@hollandhart.com, phone: 208-383-3913
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.
Who May Consent to Health Care under Idaho Law?
/in Consentby Kim Stanger, Holland & Hart LLP
I am frequently asked how an Idaho health care provider may determine whether a person is competent to consent to their own healthcare. Idaho Code § 39-4503 establishes the general standard for medical consents:
(Emphasis added). If the health care provider believes that an adult patient currently lacks the requisite comprehension, the provider should determine whether the patient executed an advance directive or otherwise conveyed his or her wishes while competent. (See I.C. § 39-4509). If there is no such prior direction from the patient or if the patient is an unemancipated minor, the healthcare provider should generally obtain consent from one of the persons identified in Idaho Code § 39-4504(1), i.e., in decreasing order of priority: a court-appointed guardian; person with durable power of attorney for healthcare; spouse; adult child; parent; person identified in delegation of parental authority; other appropriate relative; or other person who is responsible for the patient’s care. With limited statutory exceptions, the general rule is that unemancipated minors probably lack capacity to consent to their own health care. (See I.C. § 39-4504(1)). Idaho Code § 39-4504(3) generally protects providers who, in good faith, obtain consent from a person who appears to have the requisite authority to give consent.
For questions regarding this update, please contact:
Kim C. Stanger
Holland & Hart, 800 W Main Street, Suite 1750, Boise, ID 83702
email: kcstanger@hollandhart.com, phone: 208-383-3913
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.
Hospital Faces Religious Discrimination Claims for Firing Vegan Employee Who Refused a Flu Shot
/in Nondiscrimination, Interpreters and Translatorsby Kim Stanger, Holland & Hart LLP
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, like many others around the nation, has adopted a policy requiring employees to get a flu shot. A federal court in Ohio just decided that the religious discrimination lawsuit brought by a vegan employee should go forward, at least for now. The ruling allows former employee, Sakile Chenzira, to proceed with her case against the Hospital alleging that the Hospital discriminated against her based on her religious beliefs when it discharged her for refusing a flu vaccination. Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr., No. 1:11-CV-00917 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 27, 2012).
Refusing vaccine leads to termination. Chenzira had worked as a customer service representative for the Hospital for more than ten years. As a practicing vegan, Chenzira does not ingest any animal or animal by-products. Chenzira claims that prior to 2010, the Hospital accommodated her request not to receive flu vaccinations because they contained animal by-products. In December of 2010, however, the Hospital terminated Chenzira for refusing the flu vaccine.
Vegan Files Lawsuit Alleging Religious Discrimination and Wrongful Discharge. Chenzira alleges that the Hospital discharged her based on her religious and philosophical convictions as a vegan. She filed a lawsuit in federal court in Ohio asserting three claims, including religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Hospital Argues Veganism is Not a Protected Religion. The Hospital asked the Court to dismiss Chenzira’s claims in their entirety. As to the religious discrimination claims, the Hospital argued that veganism is not a religion and therefore, cannot be the basis for a discrimination claim. In the Hospital’s view, veganism is a dietary preference or social philosophy. In fact, it found no other cases in which veganism was the basis for a religious discrimination claim. Chenzira, however, argued that her vegan practice constituted a moral and ethical belief that she sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. On a motion to dismiss, Chenzira was not required to “prove” her case, but only allege a claim that was plausible on its face. The Court ruled that it was plausible that Chenzira could believe in veganism to the extent necessary to equate to a traditional religious belief. The Court denied the Hospital’s request to throw out the religious discrimination claims.
Defense of Religious Discrimination Claims Will Proceed. The Hospital may have lost the first battle on the religious discrimination claims but it hasn’t lost the war. Chenzira must actually establish that her belief in vegan practices rises to the level of a traditional religious belief. In addition, as the Court pointed out, the Hospital may justify its termination of Chenzira based on patient safety or other overriding reasons. The Court’s ruling, however, keeps Chenzira’s religious discrimination claims based on her veganism alive – at least for now.Hospitals and other health care employers have regularly defeated employee lawsuits challenging mandatory immunization policies, primarily because the employers have carefully crafted those policies to recognize religious and disability-based exceptions. We will continue to watch the Cincinnati Children’s case and let you know if veganism gets a shot in the arm from this federal court.
For questions regarding this update, please contact:
Kim C. Stanger
Holland & Hart, 800 W Main Street, Suite 1750, Boise, ID 83702
email: kcstanger@hollandhart.com, phone: 208-383-3913
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.