Posts tagged Healthcare Litigation.
Colorado's Peer Review Privilege in Peril

The confidentiality of medical staff peer review has long been a cornerstone of hospital operations, fostering an environment where physicians can candidly evaluate medical care without the looming specter of malpractice exposure.  But this established norm is facing a new threat in Colorado, where a ballot proposal aims to gut peer review confidentiality.

The Foundation of Peer Review Confidentiality

Peer review is a process in which physician conduct that endangers patients within a hospital can be immediately reviewed by peers.  Peer review’s goal is to promote continuous ...

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 ...

Peer Review or Employment? A Framework for Addressing Physician Performance Issues in Hospitals

COVID-19 accelerated the trend of physician employment with hospitals, with recent data showing that nearly 70 percent of physicians are employed by hospitals or hospital-affiliated foundations or groups.  While physician integration improves quality of care and clinical efficiency, it also blurs the separation of responsibilities between the medical staff and the employer.  This can create headaches for stakeholders who want to address physician performance issues. … 

CA DHCS Announces New MLR Requirements on Subcontractors, Including IPAs, RBOs and RKKs

California’s Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) is in the final stages of establishing new Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) requirements in Medi-Cal Managed Care. Most significantly, the guidelines specify that the MLR program, which previously applied to Medi-Cal managed care plans, will now also apply to certain of their subcontractors, including risk-bearing providers. … 

California Health Plans and Insurers, It’s Time to Prioritize Mental Health Parity Compliance

A recent California First District Court of Appeal (“Court”) decision, Futterman v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., (“Futterman”) has shed light on potential liabilities for noncompliance with the State’s mental health parity requirements.1

As background, the COVID-19 pandemic served as a catalyst for increasing already soaring behavioral health care demand, by intensifying mental health and substance use conditions across the country. In a 2020 survey by the California Health Care Foundation, Californians ranked mental health treatment as their top ...

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.)  ...

Anticipating AB 890’s Implementation: Now is a Good Time for Medical Staffs to Get Their Ducks in a Row

Given California’s shortage of primary care providers, nurse practitioners (“NPs”) are increasingly being asked to fill gaps in provider coverage.  With that background, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 890 (“AB 890”) into law in 2020.  AB 890 allows NPs to practice with expanded independence under certain conditions.  Although nearly two years have passed since AB 890 was enacted, regulatory and legislative delay have prevented full implementation of the law.

But that’s expected to change soon.  The Board of Registered Nursing anticipates the law will be fully ...

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 ...

Is It the End of Yaqub for Hearing Officer Selection?

For more than 15 years, the process of selecting a hearing officer for a medical staff peer review proceeding has been strongly influenced by the decision in Yaqub v. Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 122 Cal. App. 4th 474 (2004). That decision held that a hearing officer in a peer review proceeding was disqualified for a financial bias based upon the hearing officer's “long–standing and continuous relationship" with the hospital, which created a “possible temptation" to favor the hospital.

The court disqualified the hearing officer despite the fact that “there ...

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 ...

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.