Healthcare Law Blog

ACO’s: An Alternative to Employment by a Hospital?

With a backdrop of rising health care costs, 50 million uninsured Americans, and a health care system that spends more per person but has lower quality than 37 other developed countries, Congress passed a comprehensive health care reform law with the vision of doctors and hospitals joining forces, coordinating care to hold down costs for the prospect of earning government bonuses for controlling cots.¹ While no one can foresee exactly how all the provisions of the new law will mesh with the current system, four of Kentucky’s largest hospital systems are negotiating mergers and many of the smaller systems are buying up other providers or seeking to enter into controlling systems, physicians and their groups are increasingly looking to hospitals as employers. It is a buyers market for hospitals with the financial reserves to buy physician practices, butnot every physician practice can be bought by a hospital nor does every physician want to be employed by a hospital. While this activity is being driven by decreases in reimbursement, it is also a product of the new health reform law, which encourages providers to create integrated health care delivery systems that can improve the quality of health care services and lower health care costs. Accountable Care Organizations (“ACO”) are the vehicles through which shared savings are to be passed along when certain quality performance standards are met. Hospitals and physicians must find ways other than employment relationships to align themselves as ACO’s. More >

TAKING BACK PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY: THE PATIENT SAFETY AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2005

The peer review process is an important and necessary function of health care organizations, and the benefits it yields are unquestionable. Mandated by the Medicare's Conditions of Participation and the Joint Commission, peer review helps health care providers ensure that their patients receive safe care. Each of the fifty states, including Kentucky, have recognized the importance of the peer review process and passed statutes granting privileged status to information gathered during the peer review process. Kentucky's statute, however, has been rendered ineffective by a line of court cases. Though the language of Kentucky's statute states unambiguously that all materials generated during the peer review process "shall be confidential and privileged and shall not be subject to discover, subpoena, or introduction into evidence, in any civil action in any court,"¹ Sisters of Charity Health Systems, Inc. v. Raikes, the Supreme Court of Kentucky held that this protection does not apply in medical malpractice suits.² Kentucky healthcare providers may be able to reclaim at least some confidentiality and privilege for the type of information typically compiled during peer review through a Patient Safety Organization. More >

THE NEW DUTY TO REFUND OVERPAYMENTS

MAKING NO-SHOWS SHOW YOU THE MONEY: TIPS FOR ADDRESSING THE MISSED APPOINTMENT PROBLEM

Medical school teaches physicians how to treat patients when they show up, but does not address how to treat patients when they do not.  No-shows are money losers and a frequent problem for physician offices.  Not only do missed appointments disrupt patient flow, but no-shows also equate to lost revenue.  Further, when a patient misses an appointment, the overhead related to that no-show remains on the books because the costs of office space, equipment, staff and supplies accumulate regardless of whether or not a patient is seen and treated.  Fortunately, there are ways to limit the loss caused by missed appointments. More >