Curt Hébert, a partner at Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC was featured as a guest contributor for CNBC.com March 31, 2014. The article is titled “Risky business: Protecting US energy supplies”
Hébert is the former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and currently serves as the a co-chair of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Electric Grid Cybersecurity Initiative.
The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued its second Advisory Opinion of the year on February 12, 2014. In this opinion, the OIG concluded that it would not impose sanctions under the anti-kickback statute or civil monetary penalty law on Medicare supplemental health insurance (Medigap), preferred provider organizations (PPO’s) and hospitals participating in PPO networks. The OIG conducted analyses under both the anti-kickback statute and civil monetary penalty law.The OIG determined that the arrangement failed to meet the safe harbor for waivers of beneficiary coinsurance and deductible amounts, or the safe harbor for health plan reduced premium amounts under the anti-kickback statute analysis. Nevertheless, the OIG found the Proposed Arrangement presents a low risk of fraud or abuse because: (1) Medicare payments for inpatient services are fixed and would not affect waivers or reductions in beneficiary cost sharing; (2) the arrangement was not likely to increase utilization because the amount waived by the hospital was owed by the insurer, not the patient; (3) hospital competition would not be adversely impacted because participation in the PPO networks would be open to all Medicare-certified hospitals that meet state law; (4) the remuneration would not affect medical judgment because patient would not incur any additional cost based on their hospital selection and the physicians and surgeons would receive no remuneration; and (5) the Policyholders would be informed that they may select any hospital without penalty or increased cost.The OIG next analyzed the arrangement under the civil monetary provision because the premium credits were incentives to choose a network hospital. OIG concluded the premium credits are sufficiently similar in purpose and effect to differentials in coinsurance or deductible amounts and therefore, excepted from the definition of remuneration. The OIG also noted that the arrangement had the potential to decrease the costs to certain Medigap Policyholders without increasing costs to others and the potential to reduce state-insurance rates.
healthcare and medical concept – doctor and nurse with patient in hospital
Recently, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) released guidance on the HIPAA Privacy Rule and sharing information related to mental health treatment. While the information provided in the guidance was not new, HHS provided concise, practical advice on sharing protected health information of minors and individuals receiving mental health treatment.
HHS reiterated that a health care provider is permitted to communicate with a patient’s family, friends, or others who are involved in the patient’s care about the patient’s protected health information in a limited number of circumstances. Typically, upon receiving treatment at a hospital or other health care entity, patients are provided an opportunity to designate other individuals, if any, who may be contacted with information regarding the patient’s health care treatment. At other times, patients may indicate their consent, express or implied, to a provider sharing information with family or friends who are present in a treatment room with the patient when the provider discusses the patient’s health care treatment. Finally, when a patient is not present or is incapacitated, HHS acknowledged that a health care provider can share the patient’s information with family, friends, or others involved in the patient’s care or payment of care as long as the provider has determined, based on his professional judgment, that it is in the patient’s best interest to disclose the information. However, for disclosures to individuals other than the patient, a provider should always limit such disclosure to the protected health information that is directly related to that individual’s involvement in the patient’s care or payment for care.
HHS also noted that special considerations are given under HIPAA to certain protected health information regarding mental health treatment. Subject to a few exceptions, an individual must give a separate authorization for disclosure of psychotherapy notes even when the psychotherapy notes are being disclosed to another health care provider. The Privacy Rule refers to psychotherapy notes as those notes recorded by a mental health professional during a private counseling session or a group, joint, or family counseling session. Psychotherapy notes are kept separate from the remainder of a patient’s medical records. These notes, however, may be disclosed without authorization if required by law, such as in the case of mandatory reporting of abuse or mandatory “duty to warn” situations in which threats of serious and imminent harm are made by the patient. In situations where a health care provider believes a patient may harm himself or others, the Privacy Rule permits the provider to disclose necessary information about the patient to law enforcement, family, or other persons when the threat of serious and imminent harm is present and the health care provider believes in good faith that a warning is necessary to prevent or lessen the imminent threat to the health or safety of the patient or others.
In its guidance, HHS also addressed when a patient is considered “incapacitated” under the Privacy Rule such that the patient does not have the capacity to agree or object to a health care provider sharing information with the family member. HHS stated that the permission to make disclosures in a patient’s best interests “clearly applies when a patient is unconscious.” Nonetheless, it noted that there may be other situations when a health care provider, using his professional judgment, determines the patient does not have the capacity to agree or object to the sharing of protected health information and that the sharing is in the patient’s best interests. For example, when a patient is suffering from temporary psychosis or is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, a patient may not be considered to have the capacity to make a decision regarding disclosures. However, in these circumstances, HHS encourages the physician to take the patient’s prior expressed preferences regarding disclosures of their information into consideration. Further, if and when a patient regains capacity, the provider should offer the patient the opportunity to decide whether future disclosures would be authorized.
To review the complete guidance from the HHS, click here.
IRS tax auditor man with a stern or mean expression
Persons who have no criminal history and who would seem to be unlikely candidates for criminal accusations sometimes unexpectedly find themselves sitting across the desk from a Special Agent, Criminal Investigation Division (CID) of the Internal Revenue Service. The Special Agent arrives with no warning.
In fact, according to CID statistics released recently, 5,314 cases were initiated in 2013 alone. CID recommended 4,364 cases for prosecution during the same year. IRS claims a conviction rate of 93 percent on criminal cases during 2013. Of course, guilty pleas are considered convictions for statistical purposes.
“Our cases involved individuals and corporations from all segments of society,” Richard Weber, Chief of Criminal Investigation, said in the report. “They led us into corporate board rooms, offices of public officials, tax preparation businesses, identity theft and narcotics trafficking organizations.”
So what does one do if a CID Special Agent shows up at your home or office, flashes a badge and states he wishes to ask you a few questions? You should politely, but firmly, decline to answer any questions. This is your right as guaranteed by the Constitution, and is assuredly in your best interest.
As one who has represented a number of CID “targets,” I can unequivocally tell you that many are the persons who thought they could talk their way out of this unpleasant situation, but instead created lengthy and expensive investigations. This is true even if prospective defendants are totally innocent. The initial interview of the taxpayer target is frequently the most important step in the investigation for CID. Accordingly, it is imperative that the target not answer any questions and proceed to engage an attorney who is experienced in criminal tax matters. The attorney will be in a much better position to evaluate defenses and determine what, if any, information should be shared with CID.