Ronak Chokhani

Subscribe to Ronak Chokhani's Posts

Long before enactment of HIPAA, substance use disorder (“SUD”) treatment records have enjoyed confidentiality protections under 42 C.F.R. Part 2 (“Part 2”). Since HIPAA/HITECH and related regulations went into effect, SUD treatment providers that are subject to Part 2 (“Part 2 programs”) have struggled to make sense of the inconsistencies between Part 2 and HIPAA. For example, Part 2 programs cannot rely on HIPPA’s treatment, payment or health care operations exception to the authorization requirement because Part 2 is more restrictive than HIPAA and only permits disclosure of Part 2 records without a consent under limited circumstances. These types of inconsistencies, historically, have created numerous operational burdens for Part 2 programs and impeded care coordination.

Part 2 plays an important role to help address concerns that discrimination and fear of prosecution would deter individuals from seeking SUD treatment. It has been challenging for regulators to balance the heightened need for confidentiality of SUD treatment records with the need for sufficient operational flexibility to allow for effective care coordination and treatment.

HHS issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) proposing rules that implement statutory amendments to section 290dd-2 of title 42 United States Code (42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2) enacted in section 3221 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Public comments on the NPRM were due by January 31, 2023. HHS is proposing to give providers 24 months to comply with the changes after the publication of the final rule, but it has welcomed comments on whether that compliance period is sufficient.[i]Continue Reading New Proposed Part 2 Rules Aim for Greater HIPAA Alignment

Many health care entities took a “set it and forget it” approach to their CQIPs once the CQIPs were approved by DOH under regulations adopted in 2006.  Beginning tomorrow, such entities will need to reconsider their approach.  DOH has published significant changes to its regulations regarding approval of CQIPs that are operated by health care entities such as provider groups, health care facilities that are not hospitals, and health care plans.  In light of the revisions to WAC Chapter 246-50, health care entities should review the contents of their CQIPs regularly and establish new mechanisms for managing CQIPs.

The new regulations as adopted are available at: https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=246-50.

The final rule that shows the regulatory changes can be found at: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2021/09/21-09-077.htm.

Requirements for Obtaining and Maintaining Approval for a CQIPContinue Reading Department of Health (“DOH”) Has Issued Material Updates to Rules Governing Coordinated Quality Improvement Program (“CQIP”) Approval

In a previous Health Law Insider blog post, Stoel Rives’ health care team discussed the prohibition on elective procedures promulgated by Oregon and Washington in an effort to conserve the states’ supply of Personal Protective Equipment (“PPE”) and manage provider treatment capacity to ensure adequate resources were available to combat COVID-19. Recently, Oregon and Washington issued guidance permitting providers to gradually restart the provision of elective and non-emergent procedures.[1] As discussed below, Washington also released interpretive guidance to help providers determine how to assess “harm” to the patient that would help determine which procedures are urgent such that they are permitted under the “critical care phase” described in Governor Inslee’s Proclamation 20-24.1.

Additionally, Minnesota recently eased its prohibitions on non-urgent and elective procedures. For information regarding Minnesota’s order, please refer to our earlier client alert.

Oregon

Oregon’s requirements for resumption of elective and non-emergent procedures are onerous and differ based on the provider type. Prior to resuming elective and non-emergent procedures, hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers (“ASC”), must:

  • Ensure that they have adequate bed and workforce capacity to “accommodate an increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations in addition to increased post-procedure hospitalizations.” Specifically, hospital bed (i.e., ICU, step-down, and medical/surgical beds) availability in the region must be maintained at or below 20% and providers must have sufficient capacity to treat all hospitalized patients “without resorting to crises standard of care”;
  • Attest that they are maintaining a 30-day PPE supply on hand (two-week supply and an “open supply chain” is sufficient for “small facilities”);[2]
  • Be able to obtain “sustained PPE supply” without the triggering PPE-conserving measures;
  • Hospitals must provide a daily PPE supplies report to the Oregon Health Authority’s hospital capacity web system;
  • Have adequate access to COVID-19 testing capacity that provides results within two days (four days for smaller facilities) and consider testing patients before performing non-emergent or elective procedures;
  • Have strict infection control and visitation policies in place; and
  • Have sufficient resources for peri-operative care (e.g., pre- and post-operative provider visits; lab, radiology, and pathology services; and other ancillary services).

Continue Reading Non-Urgent and Elective Procedures Update: Oregon and Washington Ease Prohibitions

In a previous client alert, Stoel Rives’ health care team provided responses to certain frequently asked questions regarding the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) COVID-19 Telehealth Program (“Program”). At the time of that earlier client alert, FCC was awaiting the Office of Management & Budget’s approval of the Program application (“Application”) before beginning the application…

In a previous blog post, Stoel Rives’ health care team discussed orders issued by Washington and Oregon that banned elective procedures in an effort to preserve the states’ supply of certain medical equipment. Minnesota has issued similar orders to ensure its healthcare facilities have adequate capacity and medical equipment to treat COVID-19 patients.

After banning non-essential surgeries and procedures, Minnesota has compelled certain providers and businesses to prepare an inventory of personal protective equipment (“PPE”), ventilators, respirators, and anesthesia machines (collectively “Medical Equipment”) that are not being used to provide “critical health care services or essential services.”1 Providers were required to submit an inventory of their Medical Equipment online by March 25, 2020. Businesses who produced Medical Equipment for sale were excepted from this inventory submission requirement.

The chart below summarizes Minnesota’s ban on elective procedures and order preserving medical equipment:
Continue Reading COVID 19 Update: Minnesota’s Ban on Elective Procedures, Providers May Be Compelled to Donate or Sell Medical Equipment

On April 2, 2020, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) released its Report and Order 20-44 outlining how it plans to distribute $200 million appropriated to it by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). The COVID-19 Telehealth Program (the “Program”) will allow eligible providers to be reimbursed for “telecommunication services, information services, and devices necessary to enable provision of telehealth services, on a temporary basis.”

The FCC will make the COVID-19 Telehealth Program Application and Request for Funding Form (the “Application”) publicly available as soon as the Office of Management and Budget (the “OMB”) approves the Program’s information collection requirements, and will begin accepting Applications immediately thereafter. Program funds will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis and are capped at $200 million. Thus, early applicants will have a better chance of receiving the limited funding. Providers who are interested in seeking funding should familiarize themselves with the Program’s requirements and take steps to ensure they are prepared to submit their applications once the process is opened.

As discussed below, eligible providers will be able to use Program funds to purchase a range of eligible devices and services including internet connectivity services, smart phones or tablets, asynchronous audio/video platforms, and devices used for remote patient monitoring. The Program will terminate when the funding is exhausted or when the pandemic ends, whichever occurs earlier. While more guidance is needed to fully understand the reimbursement mechanics, it appears that an eligible provider will be awarded a certain amount of money based on projected costs of eligible services or devices described in the provider’s Application. After purchasing the eligible services or devices, the eligible provider will be required to submit an invoice supporting the costs of its purchases. The FCC will then reimburse the eligible provider an amount supported by the invoices.
Continue Reading FCC Releases $200M COVID-19 Telehealth Program Guidance: Your Questions Answered

In an effort to conserve the state’s medical supplies and equipment, specifically personal protective equipment (PPE), Washington and Oregon (among other states) have banned non-urgent, elective procedures.[1] A move that the states hope will help ensure adequate supply of PPE and other medical equipment (e.g., ventilators) to address the COVID-19 pandemic.

Here is a comparative chart summarizing the prohibitions promulgated by Washington and Oregon:
Continue Reading Desperate Times, Desperate Measures: Elective Medical Procedures Banned, PPEs at Risk of Confiscation

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) recently issued guidance permitting the use of telemedicine to prescribe controlled substances (schedule II to V) for the duration of the public health emergency declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Specifically, if (a) the prescription “is issued for a legitimate medical purpose” in the usual course of professional practice; (b) “audio-video, real-time, two-way interactive communication system” is used for the telemedicine encounter; and (c) the practitioner complies with applicable state and federal laws, then controlled substances may be prescribed via telemedicine without first conducting an in-person medical evaluation. DEA FAQ. Nonetheless, if the practitioner has previously conducted an in-person examination, then telemedicine may be used to prescribe controlled substances regardless of whether a public health emergency has been declared as long as the prescription is made in compliance with state law and within the usual course of the provider’s professional practice. Id.
Continue Reading COVID-19 Leads to Liberalization of e-Prescribing of Controlled Substances, May Presage Permanent Rulemaking

Health care attorneys have long questioned whether there are significant Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) risks associated with financial transactions between Medicare Advantage plans and their participating providers. An ongoing case in the Northern District of Illinois could provide Medicare Advantage organizations with a clear answer regarding the nature of such risks.

United States ex rel. Derrick v. Roche Diagnostics Corp., brought by a qui tam relator under the False Claims Act, involves Roche Diagnostics Corp. (“Roche”), a manufacturer of glucose monitoring products, and Humana, Inc. (“Humana”), an issuer of Medicare Advantage plans (collectively the “Defendants”). United States ex rel. Derrick v. Roche Diagnostics Corp., 318 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (N.D. Ill. 2018). The relator alleges that the Defendants violated the AKS when Roche agreed to settle an overpayment owed by Humana for pennies on the dollar in exchange for the exclusive placement of Roche products on Humana’s formularies. This litigation has been ongoing since 2014 and the trial is set for early 2020.

Prior to the events giving rise to this action, Roche sold glucose monitoring products via Humana’s Medicare Advantage formularies. The relator alleges the following sequence of events. First, in March 2013 Humana notified Roche that it would be terminating its supplier contract with Roche and removed Roche’s products from its formularies. After protracted settlement negotiations, Roche agreed to accept only $11 million of the $45 million overpayment. That same week, Humana placed Roche products back on the Humana formularies and, crucially, also agreed to remove from its formularies all products that competed with Roche. Additionally, Roche “reserved the right to recover the full amount owed if Humana did not satisfactorily perform its obligations” under the debt forgiveness agreement. The relator claims that this exchange of debt forgiveness (remuneration) for formulary placement (recommendation/referral) amounted to an AKS violation.
Continue Reading AKS and Medicare Advantage Plans: Don’t Kickback and Relax!

About the Health Law Insider Blog

Learn More

The Health Law Insider blog provides insights about health care-related laws and regulations from Stoel Rives’ dedicated team of health care lawyers and industry experts. This blog covers the full spectrum of regulatory and compliance issues faced by the health care industry, including data privacy and security, fraud and abuse, reimbursement, health care transactions, antitrust, taxation, and insurance regulation.