Green Bay Health Care Lawyer – Opening Office in Green Bay Wisconsin

I just wanted to let readers of our health care blog know that Ruder Ware will be opening a Green Bay office and that three Green Bay attorneys will be joining our firm. This will provide us with a presence in the Green Bay/Appleton Markets that will enhance our community presence and enable us to better serve our client in eastern Wisconsin. Our health care and compliance practice with be greatly enhanced as a result of this move.

This move will provide a local platform through which we can better serve our health care clients.

Health Care Law Practice – Green Bay Health Lawyers Ruder Ware

Ruder Ware has a long history of representing health care clients.  The firm recognizes that the highly regulated and complex nature of the industry demands the attention of a team of attorneys who, as a group, monitor constantly evolving laws and regulations and their impact on our health care clients.  At Ruder Ware, we offer a full-service solution to clients as our focus team consists of health care, business, employment, and litigation attorneys with knowledge of the health care industry.   As a result, we are able to take best practices from other industries and apply them to the health care industry, thereby increasing the ability to respond promptly to the rapidly changing health care environment.

Members of the focus team have served on the governing bodies of various health care organizations.  This service has provided our attorneys with the opportunity to counsel the health care community.  

Our dedicated team of attorneys represents health care providers in various matters including:

 Health Care Business Transactions and Corporate Law

• Compliance Planning, Operation, and Defense
• Health Care Contract Negotiation and Preparation
• Self-Referral and Anti-Kickback Issues
• Medicare and Medicaid Reimbursement Issues
• Physician and Group Representation
• Antitrust Laws in Health Care Transactions
• Health Care Fraud and Abuse Prevention and Defense
• Integrated Delivery System Development
• Managed Care and ACO Compliance
• Information Technology In Health Care
• Telehealth and Telemedicine Law
• Certificate of Need Planning, Preparation, and Litigation
• Behavioral Health Lawyers-Wisconsin Behavioral Health Representation
• Legislative and Regulatory Matters
• Long-Term Care
• Labor and Employment Law for Health Care Providers

Our attorneys have substantial expertise representing various health care providers such as:

• Physicians and Physician Groups
• Hospitals and Health Care Systems
• Long Term Care Providers
• Dentists and Dental Groups
• Chiropractors and Chiropractic Groups
• Home Health Providers
• Hospices
• Radiology Centers
• Rehabilitation Facilities
• Ambulatory Surgery Centers
• Clinical Laboratories
• DME Providers
• Group Purchasing Organizations
• Independent Provider Organization
• Alternative Health Care Clinics

Below is the official press release:

Media Contact:
Jamie Schaefer
COO
Ruder Ware, L.L.S.C.
P: 715.845.4336
E: jschaefer@ruderware.com

For Immediate Release

Attorneys Ronald Metzler, Christopher Pahl, and Chad Levanetz to join
Ruder Ware at its new Green Bay Office

WAUSAU, WI – April 27, 2018 – Ruder Ware is pleased to announce the opening of its Green Bay office and that Attorneys Ronald Metzler, Christopher Pahl, and Chad Levanetz will be joining the firm. The new office will be located at 222 Cherry Street, Green Bay, Wisconsin, which is the current location of Metzler, Timm, Treleven, S.C.

Attorney Ron Metzler – Having practiced law for over 30 years, Ron is a well-respected and well-known commercial attorney with close ties to the banking industry.

Attorney Chris Pahl – With his strong ties to the Green Bay community, Chris has built his practice around real estate development and condominium law as well as commercial transactions and estate planning.

Attorney Chad Levanetz – A seasoned litigation attorney, Chad counsels clients in the areas of real estate, construction, and general business disputes.

Stew Etten, Ruder Ware managing partner, stated, “Ruder Ware is always looking for outstanding attorneys to join our firm. With the opportunity to add Attorneys Metzler, Pahl, and Levanetz, the time was right to open a Green Bay office. We’re very excited to have attorneys of their caliber join our team of professionals.”

About Ruder Ware
Founded in 1920, Ruder Ware is the largest law firm headquartered north of Madison. With offices in Wausau, Eau Claire, and Green Bay over 40 attorneys provide legal and business advice to clients with operations of all sizes. Areas of practice include: Employment, Benefits & Labor Relations, Litigation & Dispute Resolution, Business Transactions, Trusts & Estates, and Fiduciary Services. Ruder Ware, Business Attorneys for Business Success. www.ruderware.com

Media Contact:
Jamie Schaefer
COO
Ruder Ware, L.L.S.C.
P: 715.845.4336
E: jschaefer@ruderware.com

 RSS Feed for Health Law Blog

We have recently had some requests for RSS Feed information for the Healthlaw-blog.com Health Care Blog

In case you are not able to capture the feed from the site, the following are the urls:

RSS2 url: http://www.healthlaw-blog.com/feed/ (/feed/)
ATOM url: http://www.healthlaw-blog.com/feed/atom/ (/feed/atom/)
RSS url: http://www.healthlaw-blog.com/feed/rss/ (/feed/rss/)

Physician Revises Faxing Procedures to Safeguard PHI After Faxing PHI to Employer  by Mistake

A medical office recently settled with OCR after it allegedly disclosed a patient’s HIV status when the office mistakenly faxed medical records to the patient’s place of employment instead of to the patient’s new health care provider.  The employee responsible for the disclosure received a written disciplinary warning, and both the employee and the physician apologized to the patient.  To resolve this matter, OCR also required the practice to revise the office’s fax cover page to underscore a confidential communication for the intended recipient. The office informed all its employees of the incident and counseled staff on proper faxing procedures.

Two things pop about about this instance.  First, this was clearly a privacy violation.  The patient’s protected health information, which incidentally revealed his or her HIV status, we sent to the employer.  Secondly, it was evident from the facts that this was a mistake.  We aren’t told exactly how this mistake was made.  Was the fax number written down in the wrong box on the patient’s records?  Did the employee who faxed the records put the incorrect number on the fax cover sheet?  We may never know.  But this does raise the importance of being precise at all stages of the patient encounter to assure that no inadvertent violations occur.  Care you should be taken when information about the patient is initially entered into the system.  Individuals at all levels who may be responsible for transmitting PHI must be deliberate about their actions.  How many people have called or faxed something to the wrong person before?  How many people have written down the wrong telephone or fax number before?  Everyone?

This OCR settlement just illustrates that sometimes these small errors can have big implications.  It does not appear to have been any significant fines or loss of employment in this situation.  But we cannot downplay the potential embarrassment or other negative consequences of mistakes like these.  It is one thing to text your friend Bob rather than your friend Bobbie, and weirdly from Bob’s perspective say how wonderful last night was and how you can’t wait to see him again.  Telling a patient’s employer about their health condition can have consequences that are much harder to laugh off.

Time Is Running Out on RUG System for Skilled Nursing Facility Reimbursement

It is currently anticipated that the RUG system, which is currently used to calculate reimbursement for Medicare Part A skilled nursing services, will be changed over the next year.  CMS is currently considering a new Resident Classification System that will completely change the way SNFs are reimbursed for their services.

Providers are getting glimpses of what may be included in the new calculation system.  CMS issued a draft sample worksheet using the RCS-1 system.  The stated purpose is to give providers a description of how the new system would work.  The worksheet gives a description of how a manual calculation would take place using the RCS-I methodology.

The sample draft worksheet that was issued by CMS is available here.  RCS_I_Logic-508_Final

Private Practice Provides Access to All Records, Regardless of Source

A private practice denied an individual access to his records on the basis that a portion of the individual’s record was created by a physician not associated with the practice. While the amendment provisions of the Privacy Rule permit a covered entity to deny an individual’s request for an amendment when the covered entity did not create that the portion of the record subject to the request for amendment, no similar provision limits individuals’ rights to access their protected health information. Among other steps to resolve the specific issue in this case, OCR required the private practice to revise its access policy and procedures to affirm that, consistent with the Privacy Rule standards, patients have access to their record regardless of whether another entity created information contained within it.

Identification of AIDS Status Through Medical Alert System

Dentist Revises Process to Safeguard Medical Alert PHI

A recent OCR investigation of a dental practice’s flagging of patients records highlights a potential HIPAA violation.  The OCR investigation confirmed allegations that the dental practice flagged some of its medical records with a red sticker with the word “AIDS” on the outside cover.   Records were handled so that other patients and staff without need to know could read the sticker.  A patient complaint commenced an OCR investigation into whether the practice potentially identified the AIDS status of patients within the office.

When notified of the complaint filed with OCR, the dental practice immediately removed the red AIDS sticker from the complainant’s file. To resolve this matter, OCR also required the practice to revise its policies and operating procedures and to move medical alert stickers to the inside cover of the records. Further, the covered entity’s Privacy Officer and other representatives met with the patient and apologized, and followed the meeting with a written apology.

The lesson here is not to place special medical alerts on the outside of physical patient records.  This is a particularly bad practice in a dental office where the typical office setup can result in visual identification by other patients.  If a patient is being escorted by staff and is seen by other patients, the identification on the outside of the patient’s chart can easily be connected to the patient.  This creates a very sensitive potential violation of HIPAA and other laws protecting against disclosure of the AIDS status of individuals.

OCR Citation for Improper Disclosure of PHI in Response to a Subpoena

A health care provider or other covered entity under HIPAA is permitted to disclose protected health information if it receives a lawful order from a court or administrative tribunal.  this does not mean that a provider can simply release everything it has in a patient record when it receives a court order.  Some records, such as mental health or substance abuse records might have special protections or limitations that apply.  Additionally a provider should closely review the relevant order and only disclose the information that is specifically required by the order.

The ability to release information in response to a subpoena, as opposed to an order of a court, is subject to different rules.  Patient information can only be provided under subpoena if certain notification requirements of the Privacy Rule are met. The notification requirements require the provider who received the subpoena to obtain evidence that there were reasonable efforts to notify the person who is the subject of the information about the request.  This is intended to give the individual an opportunity to object to the disclosure, or obtain a protective order from the court.

The application of these rules are illustrated by a relatively recent OCR settlement involving a hospital that was accused of improperly disclosing PHI in response to a subpoena.  The hospital apparently failed to determine that reasonable efforts had been made to notify that individual whose PHI was being sought under the subpoena.  This had the effect of denying the individual the right to object or seek a protective order.

As part of the settlement with the Hospital, OCR required the hospital to revise its subpoena processing procedures. The new policies adopted by the offending hospital hold a lesson for all covered entities.  If a subpoena does not meet the requirements of the Privacy Rule, policy should require the covered entity to reach out to the party who issued the subpoena to explain the notification requirements.  Until those requirements are complied with, the information cannot be released.

Court Orders and Subpoenas – Release of Protected Health Information

OCR Sanction for Failing to Provide Patient Access to Protected Health Information

OCR Settlements Illustrate Area of HIPAA Risk

In this case that was settled with the Office of Civil rights, the provider was a mental health center that was accused of refusing to provide a patient with a copy of her medical record, including psychotherapy notes. OCR’s investigation revealed that the Center provided the complainant with an opportunity to review her medical record, including the psychotherapy notes, with her therapist.  However, the provider failed to provide the patient with a copy of her records. The Privacy Rule requires covered entities to provide individuals with access to their medical records; however, the Privacy Rule exempts psychotherapy notes from this requirement if they are separately maintained by the covered entity. Although the Center gave the complainant the opportunity to review her medical record, this did not negate the Center’s obligation to provide the complainant with a copy of her records. Among other corrective action taken, the Center provided the complainant with a copy of her medical record and revised its policies and procedures to ensure that it provides timely access to all individuals.

The regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), which protect the privacy and security of individuals’ identifiable health information and establish an array of individual rights with respect to health information, have always recognized the importance of providing individuals with the ability to access and obtain a copy of their health information. With limited exceptions, the HIPAA Privacy Rule (the Privacy Rule) provides individuals with a legal, enforceable right to see and receive copies upon request of the information in their medical and other health records maintained by their health care providers and health plans.  Thus, individuals have a right to a broad array of health information about themselves maintained by or for covered entities, including: medical records; billing and payment records; insurance information; clinical laboratory test results; medical images, such as X-rays; wellness and disease management program files; and clinical case notes; among other information used to make decisions about individuals. In responding to a request for access, a covered entity is not, however, required to create new information, such as explanatory materials or analyses, that does not already exist in the designated record set.

An individual does not have a right to access PHI that is not part of a designated record set because the information is not used to make decisions about individuals. This may include certain quality assessment or improvement records, patient safety activity records, or business planning, development, and management records that are used for business decisions more generally rather than to make decisions about individuals.

In addition, two categories of information are expressly excluded from the right of access:

1. Psychotherapy notes, which are the personal notes of a mental health care provider documenting or analyzing the contents of a counseling session, that are maintained separate from the rest of the patient’s medical record. See 45 CFR 164.524(a)(1)(i) and 164.501.
2. Information compiled in reasonable anticipation of, or for use in, a civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding. See 45 CFR 164.524(a)(1)(ii).

Section 1557 Covered Entities and Employer Sponsored Health Plans

Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) prohibits “covered entities” discrimination in health programs that receive federal financial assistance from the Department of Human and Health Services.  Regulations were issued in 2016 that define the details of compliance with Section 1557 which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, disability and sex.  (including discrimination based on pregnancy, gender identity and sex stereotyping).  The stated purpose for the rules is to expand access and eliminate barriers to the ability to obtain health care coverage.

The definition of “covered entities” to which Section 1557 apply is extremely broad.  Through the broad definition, the requirements of Section 1557 apply to any health program or activity that received federal financial assistance through the Department of Health and Human Service.  This definition includes most health care providers, such as hospitals, nursing homes, and physician, who receive Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement, insurance marketplace and exchanges and participating health plans.

The Section 1557 rules extend to some (but not all) employers that are group health plan sponsors.  Determining whether Section 1557 applies to a specific employer can be quite complicated and is based on several factors such as the sponsor’s primary business function, the nature and extent of federal financial assistance, whether the employer plan is self-funded or insured, and variety of other factors.

Failing to comply with Section 1557, where necessary, can expose an employer to significant risk.  Significant compliance exposure, coupled with complicated rules defining application of Section 1557, make this an extremely important area for employers. Employers should carefully assess whether they are subject to the requirements of Section 1557 and take steps to assure compliance where necessary.

Disclosure of Part 2 Records for Payment or Health Care Operations Requires Written Agreement

Regulations issued by SAMHSA in January of 2018, permit a lawful holder of Part 2 Records (relating to alcohol or substance abuse treatment) to disclose those records, with written consent of the patient, to its contractors, subcontractors, or legal representatives to carry out payment or healthcare operations on behalf of the lawful holder. The regulations list 17 examples of situations where a release may be considered appropriate. Disclosures to contractors, subcontractors, and legal representatives to carry out other purposes such as substance use disorder patient diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment are not permitted under the new rule.

In order to take advantage of the rule permitting disclosure for payment and/or health care operations, the lawful holder of the information is required to have in place a written contract or comparable legal instrument with the contractor or voluntary legal representative, which provides that the contractor, subcontractor, or voluntary legal representative is fully bound by the provisions of part 2 upon receipt of the patient identifying information.

In addition to having a proper contract in place, when making any such disclosures, the lawful holder must take the following further steps:

• furnish such recipients with the notice required under § 2.32 of the regulations;
• require such recipients to implement appropriate safeguards to prevent unauthorized uses and disclosures; and
• require such recipients to report any unauthorized uses, disclosures, or breaches of patient identifying information to the lawful holder.

The lawful holder may only disclose information to the contractor or subcontractor or voluntary legal representative that is necessary for the contractor or subcontractor or voluntary legal representative to perform its duties under the contract or comparable legal instrument. Contracts may not permit a contractor or subcontractor or voluntary legal representative to re-disclose information to a third party unless that third party is a contract agent of the contractor or subcontractor, helping them provide services described in the contract, and only as long as the agent only further discloses the information back to the contractor or lawful holder from which the information originated.