Health Law Blog - Healthcare Legal Issues

Posts Tagged ‘Credentialing’

HCQIA and Clinically Integrated Provider Networks

Tuesday, July 7th, 2015

Health Care Quality Improvement Act and Clinically Integrated Provider Networks 

Clinical Integration HCQIAClinically integrated networks present unique credentialing issues that are normally not present in hospital or facility credentialing.  These unique issues stem from the very nature of integrated networks which require providers to comply with evidence-based protocols, individualized care plans, quality metrics, efficiency standards, and other system standards.

In order to assure compliance with these standards, integrated networks need to assert much more control over the clinical practices of its provider members than has historically been exercised in the hospital setting.  Credentialing and recredentialing processes need to be put in place to assure that providers practice in conformance with evidence-based practice protocols, coordinate care with other network providers, and otherwise work well within the system.

Integrated networks face a number of choices when determining how to structure their credentialing and recredentialing processes.  A threshold decision is whether the credentialing process should be structured to take advantage of the immunities that are available under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HCQIA”).

Qualifying under the HCQIA has some benefits but also carries some burdens.  In order to qualify for HCQIA immunities, the organization must implement a formal credentialing, hearing, and appeal process in order to qualify for immunities.

A CIN must also register with the HRSA and is required to make reports to the Practitioner Databank if adverse peer review determinations are made.  The CIN receives a Data Bank Identification Number and can be penalized for not reporting adverse determinations.  The reporting requirement is an issue that provider networks may wish to avoid.  The obligation to report has the practical effect of making peer review actions much more controversial and prone to litigation because a database report is a serious negative mark on a physician’s record.

On the other hand, the immunities offered by the HCQIA can be extremely valuable to a clinically integrated network.  One of the immunities that is available under the HCQIA is from the treble damage provisions under federal antitrust laws.  This immunity cannot be discounted; particularly with provider networks that make more aggressive credentialing decisions based on achievement of quality and cost issues and infirmity with system protocols.

If a choice is made to secure the HCQIA immunities, a comprehensive credentialing, peer review and fair hearing process is required as is use of the Practitioner Databank.  Furthermore, in order to qualify, adverse actions only be taken in furtherance of quality healthcare, after a reasonable effort to develop the facts, with adequate notice and hearing to the affected practitioner.  The Act and interpreting case law have created rather detailed requirements for notice and hearing.  The end result is that extensive procedural processes must be in place and consistently followed by the organization.  This of course adds another layer of complexity and cost to the organization.  At the same time, it greatly decreases the organization’s potential liability exposure which under certain circumstances could greatly exceed the cost of complying with HCQIA requirements.

New Paper On Credentialing of Telemedicine Providers

Monday, April 21st, 2014

I have published a new “Blue Paper” covering credentialing of telemedicine providers.  This issues has emerged over the past several years are telemedicine is growing in usage.  The article covers the relatively new CMS regulations regarding the credentialing process and provides some useful tips to providers who are actively engaging in telemedicine.

You can find the new Blue Paper at the following ling:  Telemedicine Credentialing Article

Distant Site Telemedicine Credentialing Conditions

Thursday, April 17th, 2014

Reliance On Distant-Site Hospital or Telemedicine Entity Credentialing

Reliance On Distant Site for Telemedicine Credentialing

The 2011 CMS regulation modified conditions of the participation for hospitals and critical access hospitals to permit the hospital to have its medical staff rely on the distant-site hospital credentialing decisions when making recommendations on privileges for individual physicians and practitioners providing telemedicine services. However, this process is only permitted when a number of conditions are met:

  • The telemedicine services must be provided pursuant to a written agreement with the Medicare participating distant-site hospital or qualifying distant-site telemedicine entity.
  • The agreement must specify that it is the responsibility of the governing body of the distant-site hospital to meet the existing requirements for credentialing of providers who are providing telemedicine service.
  • The distant-site hospital providing the telemedicine services must be another Medicare participating hospital or a “telemedicine entity.”
  • The distant-site physician or other practitioner must have been privileged at the distant-site hospital providing telemedicine services and the distant-site hospital must provide a current list of telemedicine physicians and practitioners who are privileged there and their current privileges at the distant-site hospital or entity to the hospital or CAH.
  • The distance site practitioner must hold a license that is recognized by the state in which the hospital whose patients are receiving telemedicine services is located
  • The hospital must have evidence of an internal review of the distant-site physician’s or practitioner’s performance under telemedicine privileges and must send this information to the distance site hospital for use in the distant-site hospital’s periodic appraisal of the distant-site physician’s provision of telemedicine services.
  • Information sent for use in the periodic appraisal must at a minimum have included all adverse events that resulted or could have resulted from telemedicine services provided by the distance site provider to the originating hospital’s patients and all complaints received by the originating hospital with respect to the distance site physician or practitioner.

Credentialing Rules for Telemedicine Providers

Thursday, April 17th, 2014

Telemedicine Credentialing CMS Credentialing Rules

Credentialing Telemedicine providersAt the present time, CMS conditions of participation are the primary regulatory source governing the process of credentialing telemedicine providers.  The Joint Commission has revised its requirements to be consistent with CMS rules.  In regulations dated May 5, 2011 (effective July 5, 2011), CMS provided final regulations that somewhat streamline the credentialing process and which comply with the Medicare Conditions of Participation.  CMS regulations give providers some options regarding credentialing of telemedicine including:

  • Retaining complete credentialing of all telemedicine providers using the credentialing process that is applicable to all other medical staff members.  The direct credentialing option is still the safest route for hospital’s to take from a liability standpoint.
  • Rely on the credentialing decision of another Medicare certified hospital when granting telemedicine privileges, subject to certain specific conditions including entering into a written agreement with the other facility.
  • Rely on the credentialing decisions of other “telemedicine entities” when granting telemedicine privileges, subject to certain conditions including entering into a written agreement.

In short, provided that all of the specific requirements contained in CMS regulations are met, a receiving hospital is permitted for purposes of Medicare participation to rely on the credentialing decisions that have been made by the “distant-site” telemedicine provider.  Note, however, that when the other facility is located out of state, the provider will still need to independently verify licensure under Wisconsin law.  The credentialing process conducted in a different state may not be a reliable source of assuring Wisconsin licensure.  In most cases, the distant-site provider will require full Wisconsin licensure to perform and permit billing for the applicable service.

Telemedicine Credentialing By Proxy

Tuesday, February 12th, 2013

Telemedicine Credentialing By Proxy and Hospital Policies

telemedicine policies credentialing telehealthProvider Credentialing requirements raise important considerations in any telemedicine arrangement. The facility where care is received, renders a diagnosis, or otherwise provides clinical treatment to a patient, must assure that a telemedicine practitioner is appropriately credentialed and privileged in compliance with their credentialing process, CMS rules, and the requirements of applicable accreditation organizations.  The process for credentialing telemedicine providers should be addressed by the governing body and reflected in medical staff bylaws and formal credentialing policies.

Credentialing standards have been somewhat streamlined since CMS adopted new regulations that were effective in June of 2011.  CMS rules now permit “credentialing by proxy” provided that several conditions are met.  It remains the responsibility of the board to determine when or if it wishes to rely on “credentialing by proxy” or whether it should apply full credentialing requirements on remote providers of telemedicine services.  Even though the process has been simplified, credentialing of providers who perform telemedicine services to patients of a hospital is still an extremely important responsibility of the hospital board.

John H. Fisher

Health Care Counsel
Ruder Ware, L.L.S.C.
500 First Street, Suite 8000
P.O. Box 8050
Wausau, WI 54402-8050

Tel 715.845.4336
Fax 715.845.2718

Ruder Ware is a member of Meritas Law Firms Worldwide

The Health Care Law Blog is made available by Ruder Ware for educational purposes and to provide a general understanding of some of the legal issues relating to the health care industry. This site does not provide specific legal advice and you should not use the information contained on this site to address your specific situation without consulting with legal counsel that is well versed in health care law and regulation. By using the Health Care Law Blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and Ruder Ware or any individual attorney. Postings on this site do not represent the views of our clients. This site links to other information resources on the Internet; these sites are not endorsed or supported by Ruder Ware, and Ruder Ware does not vouch for the accuracy or reliability of any information provided therein. For further information regarding the articles on this blog, contact Ruder Ware through our primary website.