Posts tagged Medical Groups.

California’s new Office of Health Care Affordability recently adopted emergency regulations (Final Regulations) implementing the Health Care Market Oversight Program, required under California’s Health Care Quality and Affordability Act (HCQAA). HCQAA, which created the Office of Health Care Affordability (OHCA), requires “health care entities” to provide written notice of certain “material change transactions” to OHCA. (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 127500 et seq.) OHCA may then conduct a cost and market impact review (CMIR), with the overarching goal of ...

Peer Review Hearings Are Not Court Trials: California Reaffirms Flexible Nature Of Fair Procedure

The California Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Boermeester v. Carry.  Though the case deals with fair procedure within a private university’s internal disciplinary proceedings, it provides helpful guidance for peer review bodies navigating medical disciplinary hearings.

Boermeester reiterated the long-standing admonition that courts should not try to impose “rigid procedures” upon private organizations’ administrative proceedings.  Rather, the organizations themselves should develop methods for providing the fundamentals of fair ...

Proposed Changes to the Health Breach Notification Rule

On May 18, 2023 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a Notice for Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) for updates to the Health Breach Notification Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 318 (the Rule). The Rule serves to ensure entities that are not defined as Covered Entities under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) are nevertheless accountable when the sensitive health information of consumers is compromised and that entities cannot conceal breaches from consumers. The Rule imposes notification requirements for a breach of unsecured identifiable health ...

California’s New Apology Law and Its Impact on Peer Review Hearings

Parties in peer review hearings can present a wide range of relevant evidence, regardless of its admissibility in a court of law.  But California has passed a new “apology law” that modifies that standard, erecting a potential hurdle for medical staffs to admit relevant evidence against practitioners in peer review hearings.

Under California law, statements, writings, or benevolent gestures expressing sympathy or a general sense of benevolence relating to the pain, suffering, or death of a person involved in an accident are inadmissible in civil trials.  (Evid. Code, § 1160.)  ...

A New Accreditation Standard and What It Means for Medical Staffs

It’s no secret that patients from marginalized groups experience lower quality health care.  Acknowledging its role in closing the health care disparity gap, the Joint Commission recently announced new and revised requirements to reduce health care disparities in accredited facilities.  For medical staffs, the new accreditation standard provides an opportunity to lead the fight against health care disparities.

Medical literature over the past twenty years confirms the persistence of health care disparities.  In August 2021, the Journal of the American Medical Association ...

A Friendly Reminder: Friendly PC Arrangements are Subject to Scrutiny

As healthcare grows increasingly complex, delivery structures continue to evolve.  A popular arrangement is the “Friendly PC” model, where large medical groups are backed by private equity or health system investment and administrative support.  But courts and lawmakers have become concerned that certain Friendly PC arrangements encroach on physician autonomy and violate the century-old prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine (“CPOM”).  A recent lawsuit—American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, Inc. v. Envision Healthcare Corporation ...

In a decision affecting California hospitals, medical groups, medical staffs, and physicians, the California First District Court of Appeal has concluded that a physician’s notice and hearing rights apply to situations where a hospital directs a medical group of a closed department to remove a physician from the hospital schedule.

In Economy v. Sutter East Bay Hospitals, Sutter Hospital operated a closed anesthesia department pursuant to a contract with East Bay Anesthesiology Medical Group (East Bay Group).  The exclusive contract required all physicians providing ...

Posted in Managed Care

A proposed rule intended to stabilize the individual and small group insurance markets was issued on February 17, 2017, only a week after the Senate confirmed Tom Price as the Secretary of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department (HHS).[1] Although the proposed rule is intended to stabilize these markets, it may make it more difficult for individuals to obtain and maintain health insurance coverage, thereby reducing the number of people who are insured.

This is a turbulent time for American healthcare. Within weeks after the publication of the proposed rule, the American ...

(Updated March 11, 2017) On February 3, 2017, the Medical Board of California (MBC) published the much-anticipated 12th Edition of its Manual of Model Disciplinary Orders and Disciplinary Guidelines (Guidelines).  Drafts of this latest edition had been slugging through the approval process since mid-2015.

The most notable modification is to Standard Condition #33 (Non-practice While On Probation). Under the 11th Edition, the MBC defined nonpractice as any period of time respondent is not practicing medicine in California…for at least 40 hours in a calendar month in direct ...

On January 19, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement which would resolve allegations that competing ophthalmologists violated federal antitrust laws when they refused to negotiate contracts with MCS Advantage, Inc. (MCS), a Medicare Advantage Plan, and Eye Management of Puerto Rico (Eye Management), MCS’s network administrator.

According to the complaint, the charges arise from an arrangement between Eye Management and MCS entered into in April, 2014.  Eye Management agreed to create and manage a network of ophthalmologists to provide services to MCS enrollees and to do so at a cost savings to MCS.   Eye Management planned to replace MCS’s existing contract with each individual ophthalmologist with a new contract between Eye Management and the ophthalmologist at a lower reimbursement rate. In early June 2014, Eye Management sent a proposed contract to every ophthalmologist contracted with MCS at the time. These contracts offered payments at rates that were about 10% lower, on average, than the rates under the existing contracts between MCS and each ophthalmologist.

Our Health Law Ticker is a one-stop resource for everything new and noteworthy in healthcare law. We cover recent developments in healthcare legislation, healthcare reform, Medicare/Medicaid, managed care, litigation, regulatory compliance, HIPAA, privacy, peer review, medical staffs and general business operations for healthcare companies and licensed healthcare professionals.

Stay Connected

RSS RSS Feed

Categories

Archives

View All Nossaman Blogs
Jump to Page

We use cookies on this website to improve functionality, enhance performance, analyze website traffic and to enable social media features. To learn more, please see our Privacy Policy and our Terms & Conditions for additional detail.