Health Care Compliance Watch : New York Health Care Compliance Lawyer & Attorney : Ilana Sable : NY Physician Representation Law

Obstetrics practices located in New Jersey and New York can increase revenue and efficiently allocate a substantial portion of their daily patient care by incorporating the services of certified midwives and/or certified nurse-midwives into their practices. Generally speaking, midwives are certified to attend to low risk pregnancies, attend during childbirth and to provide post partum care. Certified nurse-midwives may prescribe certain drugs, as authorized by the licensor-states and as outlined in their governing collaboration and/or affiliation agreements with a supervising physician.

In New Jersey, in order to provide patient care, “certified midwives” are required to enter into a written affiliation agreement with a New Jersey licensed physician who holds hospital privileges in operative obstetrics/gynecology. The affiliation agreement must set forth clinical guidelines that will outline the certified midwife’s scope of practice.

In New York, “licensed midwives” are required to establish and maintain a collaborative relationship with (i) a licensed physician who is board certified as an obstetrician-gynecologist by a national certifying body, (ii) a licensed physician who practices obstetrics or (iii) a hospital that provides obstetrics through a licensed physician having obstetrical privileges at such institution. The collaborative relationship must provide for consultation, collaborative management and referral to address the health status and risks of his or her patients and must include plans for emergency medical gynecological and/or obstetrical coverage.

As with other non-physician practitioners (“NPPs”), obstetrics practices can issue medical bills to commercial payors, Medicare and/or Medicaid for services provided by certified midwives and certified nurse-midwives. Depending on the method by which the midwife services are billed to the insurance carrier (i.e., using the name and national provider identifier (“NPI”) number of the midwife versus the name and NPI of the supervising physician’s as “incident to” the services provided by the physician) the midwife services, on average, will be reimbursed at a rate similar to that which would be paid if the services where performed by a physician. 

The “midwife” license is only offered in a small number of states (New Jersey and New York offer the midwife license). Because these services are payable and reimbursable by insurance carriers and they offer obstetric practices the opportunity to treat patients in an efficient, cost effective, manner without actively utilizing the time and supervising physician(s).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A persistent concern for many health care entity-employers (“Entity-Employers”) is retaliation from a disgruntled former employee after the Entity-Employer responds to a “reference request” with negative, albeit truthful, information about the former employee. Often times, the Entity-Employer will choose not to respond to the reference request or will omit key information found in the former employees personnel file in the hopes of avoiding future conflict or retaliation (usually in the form of a lawsuit).  However, the State of New Jersey found any failure to report on the part of Entity-Employer to be a danger to patient safety and welfare and, accordingly, enacted the Health Care Professional Responsibility and Reporting Act (“HCPRREA”) in response.

In New Jersey, pursuant to the HCPRREA, Entity-Employers are prohibited from, among other things, withholding certain information about current or former employees from other health care entities that request information. Entity-Employers are further provided with immunity from civil liability for reporting employment related information to another health care entity. 

In Senisch v. Carlino, et. al., 2011 N.J. Super. Lexis 211 (Decided December 1, 2011 Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division), the Appellate Division upheld a finding that, pursuant to HCPRREA and related case law, Entity-Employers are immunized from civil liability for reporting to another health care entity if said reporting complies with the HCPRREA’s provisions.

In Senisch, Plaintiff was a physician assistant formerly employed by Defendant Deborah Heart and Lung Center (the “Cardiology Center”). Plaintiff had been terminated from his employment with the Cardiology Center because of stated deficiencies in his performance. When Plaintiff attempted to obtain different employment the new employer sought a reference from the Cardiology Center. The Cardiology Center responded to the request with negative information from the personnel file of Plaintiff.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s findings and held that:

[The HCPRREA] … prohibits health care entities from withholding certain information about current or former employees from other health care entities that request the information. The relevant parts of the Act state:

a. A health care entity, upon the inquiry of another health care entity, shall truthfully:

. . . .

(2) provide information about a current or former employee's job performance as it relates to patient care, as provided in this section, and, in the case of a former employee, the reason for the employee's separation.

. . . .

c. A health care entity, or any employee designated by the entity, which, pursuant to this section, provides information in good faith and without malice to another health care entity concerning a health care professional, including information about a current or former employee's job performance as it relates to patient care, is not liable for civil damages in any cause of action arising out of the provision or reporting of the information.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that the Defendants could not be held liable in a civil lawsuit for responding to a reference request with negative information from the personnel file of Plaintiff. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Health care providers who have been excluded from participation with certain insurance carriers often approach me for guidance concerning their options (if any) for continuing their existing relationships - and possibly treatment – with patients who are insured by the “excluding” insurance carrier. While the reasons for “exclusion” are quite varied and have differing degrees of severity (depending on the particular insurance carrier and type of exclusion that is involved), in almost all cases, exclusion from network participation means that the excluded provider cannot treat patients insured by the excluding insurance carrier, whether directly or indirectly. Provider arrangements made to circumvent exclusion may, among other things, be deemed the “fraudulent practice of medicine” and may carry serious, permanent, consequences for both the excluded provider and any provider assisting the excluded provider with the circumvention.

In the Matter of Josifidis v. Daines, 2011 NY Slip Op 7891 (decided November 10, 2011, Appellate Division, Third Department) the Third Department confirmed a determination of the Hearing Committee of the New York State Board for Professional Medical Conduct (the “Committee”) which, among other things, revoked the medical license of Petitioner Harry Josifidis (the “Excluded Provider”) for the fraudulent practice of medicine. In doing so, the Third Department confirmed the Committee’s finding that the Excluded provider circumvented “his exclusion from insurers’ networks by using another physician’s name.” 

The relevant facts underlying the Third Department’s decision are as follows:

“[The Excluded Provider] was excluded by certain health insurers from being reimbursed as an in-network provider for treatment rendered to their insureds as the result of a prior disciplinary action. [The Excluded Provider] thereafter entered into an agreement with another physician (hereinafter the other physician) by which the other physician’s name appeared on claims submitted to the insurers for [the Excluded Provider’s] treatment of in-network patients.

The Excluded Provider, in an effort to “explain” the legality of the circumvention arrangement, argued that “he relied on the other physician’s representations that their arrangement was ‘lawful and appropriate’” and that “he entered the agreement to provide his patients with continuity of care rather than for profit.”

The Third Department concluded that “[s]ubstantial evidence in the record shows that [the Excluded Provider] repeatedly submitted bills in the other physician’s name for services he had provided in order to receive payment from insurers who had specifically excluded him from being reimbursed for such services…. Accordingly, [the Third Department found] that the Committee properly rejected [the Excluded Provider’s] explanation and substantial evidence in the record supports its determination.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks