Contact Us
Categories
- Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights
- Medical Residents
- EMTALA
- FDA
- Reproductive Rights
- Roe v. Wade
- SCOTUS
- Medical Spas
- medical billing
- No Surprises Act
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Workplace health
- Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act
- Code Enforcement
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employment Law
- FFCRA
- CARES Act
- Nursing Home Reform Act
- Acute Care Beds
- Clinical Support
- Coronavirus
- COVID-19
- Emergency Medical Services
- Emergency Preparedness
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- KBML
- medication assisted therapy
- SB 150
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Legislative Developments
- Corporate
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Employee Contracts
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Opioid Epidemic
- Sexual Harassment
- Health Resource and Services Administration
- House Bill 333
- Litigation
- Medical Malpractice
- Senate Bill 79
- locum tenens
- Senate Bill 4
- Physician Prescribing Authority
- Chronic Pain Management
- HIPAA
- Prescription Drugs
- "Two Midnights Rule"
- 340B Program
- EHR Systems
- Hospice
- ICD-10
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Primary Care Physicians ("PCPs")
- Skilled Nursing Facilities (“SNFs”)
- Uncategorized
- Affordable Insurance Exchanges
- Drug Screening
- Electronic Health Records (“EHR")
- Fraud
- Health Care Fraud
- HIPAA Risk Assessment
- KASPER
- Mental Health Care
- Office for Civil Rights ("OCR")
- Qui Tam
- Stark Laws
- Urinalysis
- Accountable Care Organizations (“ACO”)
- Affordable Care Act
- Alternative Payment Models
- Anti-Kickback Statute
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”)
- Certificate of Need ("CON")
- Compliance
- Data Breach
- Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- Electronic Protected Health Information (ePHI)
- False Claims Act
- Federally Qualified Health Centers (“FQHCs”)
- Fee for Service
- Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act)
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)
- Health Professional Shortage Area ("HPSA")
- Hospitals
- HPSA
- Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure
- Kentucky’s Department for Medicaid Services
- Medicaid
- Medical Staff By-Laws
- Medically Underserved Area ("MUA")
- Medicare
- Office of Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (OIG)
- Part D
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”)
- Pharmacists
- Physician Assistants
- Rural Health Centers (“RHCs”)
- Rural Health Clinic
- Telehealth
- American Telemedicine Association (“ATA”)
- Charitable Hospitals
- Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)
- Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (“HEAT”)
- HRSA
- Hydrocodone
- Kentucky Board of Nursing
- Kentucky Pharmacists Association
- Limited Services Clinics
- Mid-Level Practitioners
- Qualified Health Care Centers (“FQHC”)
- Telemedicine
- APRNs
- Chain and Organization System (“PECOS”)
- Jimmo v. Sebelius
- Maintenance Standard
- Overpayments
- United States ex. Rel. Kane v. Continuum Health Partners
- Vitas Innovative Hospice Care
- Webinar
- Agreed Order
- All-Payer Claims Database ("APCD")
- Chiropractic services
- Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”)
- Compliance Officer
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California
- Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA")
- Emergency Rooms
- Enrollment
- Essential Health Benefits
- Hinchy v. Walgreen Co.
- ICD-9
- Kentucky Senate Bill 7
- Medicare Part D
- Minors
- Ophthalmological services
- Physician Compare website
- Re-validation
- Texting
- 2014 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (“PFS”)
- 501(c)(3)
- Affinity Health Plan
- Appeal
- Arbitration
- Cadillac tax
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Chronic Care Management
- Community health needs assessment (“CHNA”)
- Compounding
- Condition of Participation ("CoP")
- CPR
- Denied Claims
- Department of Medicaid Services’ (“DMS”)
- Dispenser
- Drug Quality and Security Act (“DQSA”)
- Federation of State Medical Boards (“FSMB”)
- Food and Drug Administratio
- Form 4720
- Grace Period
- HealthCare.gov
- Home Health Prospective Payment System
- Home Medical Equipment Providers
- Hospitalists
- House Bill 3204
- Individual mandate
- Inpatient Care
- Kentucky Medical Practice Act
- Kindred v. Cherolis
- Kynect
- Licensure Requirements
- LLC v. Sutter
- Long-term care communities
- Long-Term Care Providers ("LTC")
- Low-utilization payment adjustment ("LUPA")
- Medicare Shared Saving Program (MSSP)
- Mobile medical applications ("apps")
- Model Policy for the Appropriate Use of Social Media and Social Networking in Medical Practice (“Model Policy”)
- National Drug Code ("NDC")
- National Institutes of Health
- Network provider agreement
- New England Compounding Center ("NECC")
- Nonprofit hospitals
- Nonroutine medical supplies conversion factor (“NRS”)
- Outsourcing facility
- Payors
- Personal Service Entities
- Physician Payments
- Ping v. Beverly Enterprises
- Power of Attorney ("POA")
- Prescriber
- Qualified Health Plan ("QHP")
- Quality reporting
- Social Media
- Spousal coverage
- State Health Plan
- Sustainable Growth Rate (“SGR”)
- Upcoding
- UPS
- “Superuser”
- "Plan of Correction"
- Advanced Practice Registered Nurses
- Audit
- Autism/ASD
- Business Associate Agreements
- Business Associates
- Call Coverage
- Daycare centers
- Decertification
- Division of Regulated Child Care
- Doe v. Guthrie Clinic
- EHR vendor
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- ERISA
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- False Billings
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Group Purchasing Organizations ("GPO")
- Health Professional Shortage Areas (“HPSA”)
- Health Reform
- House Bill 104
- Intermediate Sanctions Agreement
- Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange
- Kentucky House Bill 159
- Kentucky House Bill 217
- Licensed practical nurses (LPN)
- List of Excluded Individuals and Entities
- Meaningful use incentives
- Medicare Administrative Coordinators
- Medicare Benefit Policy Manual
- Nurse practitioners (NP)
- Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”)
- Part A
- Part B
- Patient Autonomy
- Patient Privacy
- Personal Health Information
- Physician Recruitment
- Physician shortages
- Provider Self Disclosure Protocol
- Registered nurses (RN)
- Residency Programs
- Self-Disclosure Protocol
- Senate Bill 39
- Senate Finance Committee Report
- State Medicaid Expansion
- Statement of Deficiency ("SOD")
- Trade Association Group Coverage
- Abuse and Waste
- Center for Disease Control
- Compliance Programs
- Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan programs (“CO-OPS”)
- Critical Access Hospitals (“CAHs”)
- Essential Health Benefits (“EHBs”)
- Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS)
- Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services
- Kentucky Health Care Co-Op
- Kentucky Health Cooperative (“KYHC”)
- Kentucky Primary Care Centers (“PCCs”)
- Managed Care Organizations (“MCOs”)
- Medicare Audit Improvement Act of 2012
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- Recovery Audit Contractors (“RAC”)
- Small Business Health Options Program (“SHOP”)
- Sunshine Act
- Employee Agreement
- Free Conference Committee Report
- Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program
- House Bill 1
- House Bill 4
- Kentucky “Pill Mill Bill”
- Pain Management Facilities
- Health Care Law
- Health Insurance
- Healthcare Regulation
McBrayer Blogs
Companies—It May Be Time to Reevaluate Your Corporate Compliance Program
In April 2019, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Criminal Division, issued a guidance document entitled “Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs.”[1] This guidance updates standards the DOJ utilizes to investigate, charge, and negotiate criminal charges related to corporate crimes.[2] Although the DOJ recognizes that each company has its own set of unique risks, its investigations often include three common questions in assessing the effectiveness of a company’s corporate compliance program.
1. Is the corporation’s compliance program well designed?
In determining if a corporation’s compliance program is well designed, a DOJ prosecutor will examine the comprehensiveness of the compliance program. That is, does the program convey intolerance for misconduct? Do policies and procedures integrate into the company’s operations and workforce? Designing a good compliance program, at a minimum, should consider the following:
- Risk Assessment — how the company has identified, assessed, and defined its unique set of risks and what the compliance program does to consider and address those risks. This not only requires a company to develop a risk assessment, but also requires that company to periodically reevaluate its risks and update its risk assessment profile.
- Policies and Procedures — does the company have a code of conduct prioritizing commitment to compliance with all relevant state and federal laws? Has the company established policies and procedures integrating a culture of compliance into daily operations? The code of conduct as well as policies and procedures should be accessible to all employees, officers, and Board members.
- Training and Communications — employees, officers, and Board members should ideally receive training on an annual basis to ensure its policies and procedures are integrated into the company. Training should ideally cover prior compliance incidents or high-risk areas and should direct employees where to obtain advice as concerns arise.
- Confidential Reporting Structure and Investigation Process — does the company have a way for employees to anonymously/confidentially report suspected or actual misconduct? Does this reporting structure protect employees from retaliation? When a complaint arises, how does the company ensure investigations are independent and appropriately conducted?
- Third Party Management — a company should ensure contract terms exist with third parties that specifically describe services performed, reflect a fair compensation, and consider appropriate actions for misconduct.
- Mergers and Acquisitions — a company should perform due diligence prior to merging with or acquiring another organization that evaluates corruption or misconduct. During the M&A process, compliance must be integrated into the arrangement.
2. Is the program being applied earnestly and in good faith (i.e. effectively)?
The DOJ points out that well-designed compliance programs may be unsuccessful in practice if implementation is ineffective. Applying a compliance program should include the following considerations:
- Commitment by Upper Management — the company’s top leaders often set a tone of compliance that trickles down to the rest of the company. Senior leaders’ words and actions that promote compliance as well as oversight and remediation efforts foster a culture of compliance throughout the company.
- Autonomy and Resources — does a company’s compliance function have the ability to address compliance concerns? Does the compliance function have sufficient resources and autonomy from management? Can the compliance function report directly to the board?
- Incentives and Disciplinary Measures — a company should establish clear disciplinary procedures for non-compliance. These procedures should be enforced consistently across the company in a manner that ensures disciplinary actions are compatible with violations.
3. Does the organization’s compliance program work in practice?
Companies should respond to prior misconduct and proactively assess new risks to make improvements to its compliance program as necessary. During investigations, DOJ prosecutors consider how companies’ compliance programs evolve and develop over time to address existing and changing compliance risks. The following factors contribute to a prosecutor’s determination if a compliance program “works in practice:”
- Continuous Improvement, Periodic Testing, and Review — of course, a company changes over time along with the environment in which it operates. Companies should periodically review their compliance programs to ensure effectiveness. Internal audits, if designed with appropriate frequency and in appropriate scope, may help a company address problems proactively.
- Investigation of Misconduct — does a company have a timely and thorough process for investigations of misconduct? Does a company document its response to investigations along with any disciplinary or remedial actions?
- Analysis and Remediation of Any Underlying Misconduct — a company should conduct root cause analyses of misconduct to remediate any causes of misconduct.
With the new DOJ guidance, companies have stronger insight into what DOJ prosecutors consider in determining a compliance program’s effectiveness and integration into a company’s operations. Companies should consider capitalizing on this insight by reviewing their own compliance programs to ensure consistency with DOJ considerations. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Services may be performed by others.
This article does not constitute legal advice.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/page/file/937501/download.
[2] https://www.paulweiss.com/media/1497187/pw_nysba_oct09.pdf; https://www.healthlawyers.org/Members/PracticeGroups/FA/EmailAlerts/Pages/DOJ_Issues_Updated_Guidance_on_Corporate_Compliance_Programs.aspx?utm.