KPC Health Wins Approval to Buy Verity Health Hospitals

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/kpc-health-wins-approval-buy-verity-health-hospitals?spMailingID=15496817&spUserID=MTg2ODM1MDE3NTU1S0&spJobID=1621210213&spReportId=MTYyMTIxMDIxMwS2

Image result for KPC Health

A federal bankruptcy judge approved KPC Health’s $610 million bid Wednesday afternoon.


KEY TAKEAWAYS

KPC Health is adding four Verity Health-owned hospitals to its growing collection of nonprofit hospitals.

Dr. Kali P. Chaudhuri, chairman of KPC Health, referred to the ruling as an “Important milestone” for the company.

The court-approved deal now goes before California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who attempted to block the sale of two Verity Health hospitals in January.

KPC Health, a Santa Ana, California-based healthcare company, announced Wednesday that a federal bankruptcy judge approved the $610 million purchase of four hospitals owned by financially-troubled Verity Health System.

KPC Health will take ownership of St. Francis Medical Center, St. Vincent Medical Center, Seton Medical Center, and Seton Coastside in Moss Beach. The company also acquired St. Vincent Dialysis Center as part of the deal.

The deal is the latest development in Verity Health’s ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, which began in August 2018.

“Today marks an important milestone for KPC Heath’s bid to acquire four Verity Health hospitals,” Dr. Kali P. Chaudhuri, chairman of KPC Health, said in a statement. “We look forward to working with Verity Health on a successful acquisition and welcoming these important community hospitals into our integrated healthcare system.”

The acquisition of four Verity Health hospitals adds to KPC Health’s seven acute care hospitals in southern California as well as seven long-term acute care hospitals and two skilled nursing facilities in multiple states.

Verity Health’s board of directors approved the deal on April 15. Due to no other bid exceeding KPC Health’s $610 million bid, no auction was required for the four Verity Health hospitals. 

The next step will be submitting the purchase to California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who has already been involved in handling the sale of two Verity Health hospitals earlier this year.

In January, Becerra blocked the $235 million sale of two hospitals owned by Verity Health, O’Connor and Saint Louise hospitals, to Santa Clara County. 

Despite the sale being approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in December, Becerra argued that the County had not agreed to specific conditions related to the deal.

At the end of January, a federal bankruptcy judge denied Becerra’s motion to block the sale, stating that he did not have the authority to regulate the sale. A scheduled federal hearing on Becerra’s motion to block was cancelled in mid-February and the sale closed on March 1.

 

 

TRUMP PUNTS ACA REPLACEMENT UNTIL AFTER 2020 ELECTION

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/strategy/trump-punts-aca-replacement-until-after-2020-election

Image result for punt

‘Vote will be taken right after the Election when Republicans hold the Senate & win … back the House,’ Trump tweeted a week after his administration shifted its position on the ACA’s legality.


KEY TAKEAWAYS

After fellow Republicans expressed doubt in the White House’s renewed focus on replacing the ACA, the president appears to have backed down.

The administration continues to argue that the entire ACA should be invalidated by the federal courts.

In a series of tweets Monday evening, President Donald Trump appeared to punt his renewed focus on eliminating and replacing the Affordable Care Act until after the 2020 election.

The White House made news a week earlier by shifting its position on the ACA’s legality, arguing that federal judges should invalidate the entire law. Trump then said the GOP would become “The Party of Healthcare,” and he signaled that another GOP-driven legislative proposal to replace the ACA with something better was forthcoming.

This week, however, he said Congress will vote on such a legislative proposal in about 19 months—in the event that Republicans maintain their majority in the Senate and regain control of the House.

“Everybody agrees that ObamaCare doesn’t work,” Trump tweeted Monday. “Premiums & deductibles are far too high – Really bad HealthCare! Even the Dems want to replace it, but with Medicare for all, which would cause 180 million Americans to lose their beloved private health insurance. The Republicans…..”

“….are developing a really great HealthCare Plan with far lower premiums (cost) & deductibles than ObamaCare. In other words it will be far less expensive & much more usable than ObamaCare,” he continued. “Vote will be taken right after the Election when Republicans hold the Senate & win……”

“….back the House. It will be truly great HealthCare that will work for America. Also, Republicans will always support Pre-Existing Conditions,” Trump wrote. “The Republican Party will be known as the Party of Great HealtCare. Meantime, the USA is doing better than ever & is respected again!”

Trump’s apparent punt comes after GOP leaders said they wanted him to back down. Republican lawmakers have even declined to voice support for a new legislative proposal before seeing its details, so they can distance themselves from it if necessary, as Politico’s Quint Forgey and John Bresnahan reported.

“I look forward to seeing what the president is proposing and what he can work out with the speaker,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, told Politico in a brief interview Thursday.

This development comes also as two Republican state attorneys general formally disagreed with those who argue the entire ACA should fall, arguing in an amicus brief filed Monday that only the ACA’s individual mandate should be struck down.

 

 

CHI Franciscan settles antitrust case: 5 things to know

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/chi-franciscan-settles-antitrust-case-5-things-to-know.html?origin=cfoe&utm_source=cfoe

Image result for hospital antitrust lawsuit

An antitrust lawsuit filed by the Washington state attorney general against CHI Franciscan will not go to trial, according to the Kitsap Sun.

Five things to know:

1. The lawsuit, filed in 2017, alleged Tacoma, Wash.-based CHI Franciscan’s affiliation with two physician groups in Kitsap County raised healthcare prices and decreased competition.

2. “Both transactions also enabled CHI Franciscan to capture more patient referrals and shift services to its wholly owned hospital, Harrison Medical Center, the only civilian acute care hospital in Kitsap County,” states an August 2017 press release from the Washington state attorney general’s office. “The transactions have hobbled CHI Franciscan’s competitors while allowing it to reap the benefit of more expensive, hospital-based rates.”

3. A trial in the case was slated to begin March 19 but was called off March 15 after the parties notified the court that the matter was resolved.

4. Specifics about the settlement have not been released. The parties have until April 29 to file documents outlining the settlement and requesting the case be dismissed, according to the Kitsap Sun.

5. A CHI Franciscan spokesperson told the Kitsap Sun that the settlement will ensure the health system’s affiliations with the two physician groups remain in place.

“This is good for patients and doctors on the peninsula, keeps our highly skilled doctors in our community, and ensures everyone has access to great care close to home,” the spokesperson said.

Access the full Kitsap Sun article here.

 

 

UPMC fires back at state AG, seeks to join BCBS antitrust lawsuit

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/upmc-fires-back-at-state-ag-seeks-to-join-bcbs-antitrust-lawsuit/548993/

Image result for upmc building

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center filed a counter lawsuit on Thursday against the Pennsylvania attorney general, who is seeking to force the healthcare giant into contracting with rival Highmark. The system is also seeking to insert itself in a broader lawsuit over the ways Blues operate.

The flurry of filings taps into big questions over payer competition and underscores tensions seen throughout the country between insurance companies and providers as they negotiate contracts, particularly in highly concentrated markets. States have stepped up their enforcement of consumer protections against rising healthcare costs — but UPMC is saying its regulators have greatly overstepped their bounds. 

Earlier this month, Shapiro alleged Pittsburgh’s dominant medical provider wasn’t living up to its charitable mission as a nonprofit, accusing the health system of “forsaking its charitable obligations” in exchange for “corporate greed.”

The legal duel stems from a contract dispute between UPMC and its rival Highmark. Until June 30, the two have a legal agreement protecting consumer access to the other’s network through a consent decree. UPMC refuses to modify the decree and contract with Highmark, which risks in-network access to UPMC hospitals for Highmark members.

In response to the attorney general’s initial complaint, UPMC alleges that Shapiro’s attempt to renew and modify an expiring agreement between the Pittsburgh health system and Highmark is “unprecedented and unwarranted.”  The modification would, among other things, remove the majority of UPMC’s board of directors and force the integrated system to contract with any payer. 

The state AG responded on Friday, accusing UPMC of ignoring its mission and noting it would not be intimated by the healthcare behemoth.

“With their filings today, UPMC has shown they intend to spend countless hours and untold resources on a legal battle instead of focusing on their stated mission as a non-profit charity — promoting the public interest and providing patient access to affordable health care,” said Attorney General’s Office spokesman Joe Grace.

In its notice to the AG, UPMC lays out five examples it calls frivolous enough to get Shapiro’s motion dismissed — including previous testimony delivered by Deputy Attorney General Jim Donahue in 2014, when he told state representatives there is “no statutory basis” to make the two companies contract with each other without setting a dangerous economic precedent.

“If we force the resolution in this case, we really could not avoid trying to force a similar resolution in all those other situations, and that is simply and unworkable method of dealing with these problems,” Donahue said at the time. “We’d be putting our finger on the scale, so to speak … and we’re not sure what those effects would be.”

One effect is a class action lawsuit, which UPMC filed separately Thursday. It alleges Shapiro has violated at least four federal laws: Medicare Advantage statutes protecting competition, the Affordable Care Act’s nonprofit payer regulations and the Sherman Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

“Purporting to act in his official capacity, General Shapiro has illegally taken over nonprofit healthcare in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” UPMC’s class action states. “Without rulemaking, legislation or public comment, General Shapiro has announced new ‘principles’ that radically (and often in direct contravention of existing federal and state law) change how nonprofit health insurers and providers operate, now rendering the Attorney General the arbiter of how nonprofit health organizations should envision and achieve their mission.”

UPMC says Blues system bad for business

Separate from its battle with the state attorney general, UPMC is attempting to jump in the middle of a legal antitrust battle over how Blue Cross Blue Shield plans operate. UPMC is seeking both a preliminary injunction and a motion to intervene in the years-long federal case in Alabama.

UPMC is asking the Alabama court to stop the Blues plans from enforcing their own market allocation agreements that prevent UPMC from contracting with other Blues plans, according to the filing. UPMC says a significant chunk of its patients have a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan from a different provider other than Highmark.

Joe Whatley, co-lead counsel for provider plaintiffs in the Alabama case, told Healthcare Dive UPMC “presents a good example of how the Blues are abusing their illegal agreement for their benefit and to harm healthcare providers throughout the country.”

UPMC argues that it would contract with other Blue Cross Blue Shield plans, separate from Highmark, but cannot due to the way Blues operate — or limit how they compete with one another. BCBS plans tend to stake out their own geographic areas and avoid competition with one another, a practice the Alabama court has already found is in violation of antitrust laws. A BCBS appeal to the Alabama judge’s opinion was already struck down by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals late last year.

UPMC is asking the Alabama court for an injunction, or to step in and stop the Blues plans from enforcing or complying with their own market allocation agreements that are preventing UPMC from contracting with other Blues plans, according to the filing. And because the hometown plan, Highmark, does not have a contract with UPMC after June 30, it means that other Blues plan members that have enjoyed in-network access to UPMC will soon lose access after the consent decree expires.

About 24% of UPMC’s hospital patients have a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan other than Highmark.

UPMC contends that it has tried to contract with other Blues but was turned down. “The average non-Highmark Blues patient does not know that UPMC has offered contracts to each of these plans and been turned down because the Blues’ illegal market allocation prevents them entering into such an agreement with UPMC,” according to the filing.

Without an injunction, UPMC alleges it will suffer irreparable harm to its reputation and will lose a significant number of patients who have a non-Highmark Blues plans.

The Pennsylvania attorney general’s office has not responded to Healthcare Dive’s request for comment and UPMC declined to discuss the case further.

 

 

 

 

BETH ISRAEL, LAHEY HEALTH MERGER GETS FTC, MASSACHUSETTS AG’S APPROVAL

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/beth-israel-lahey-health-merger-gets-ftc-massachusetts-ags-approval?utm_source=silverpop&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ENL_181130_LDR_BRIEFING%20(1)&spMailingID=14711589&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1522364043&spReportId=MTUyMjM2NDA0MwS2

he condition-laden approval stipulates a seven-year price cap that guarantees that the merged health system’s price increases will be kept below the state’s healthcare cost growth benchmarks.


KEY TAKEAWAYS

The Federal Trade Commission calls the merger ‘a close call’ but defers to state regulators.

The merged health system will provide $71 million for care in underserved areas.

The merged, 13-hospital health system will be one of the largest in the Bay State.

The proposed merger of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Lahey Health System cleared a huge hurdle today when Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey announced her conditional support.

The approval comes with what Healey called an “unprecedented” seven-year price cap that guarantees that the merged health system’s price increases will be kept below the state’s Health Care Cost Growth benchmark.

“Through this settlement, Beth Israel Lahey Health will cap its prices, strengthen safety net providers across the region, and invest in needed behavioral health services,” Healey said in a media release.

“These enforceable conditions, combined with rigorous monitoring and public reporting, create the right incentives to keep care in community settings and ensure all our residents can access the high-quality health care they deserve,” she said.

The deal also cleared a key federal hurdle when the Federal Trade Commission voted to close its investigation in light of Healey’s agreement.

“The assessment of whether to take enforcement action was a close call. However, based on Commission staff’s work and in light of the settlement obtained by the Massachusetts AG, we have decided to close this investigation,” the FTC said in a media release.

Kevin Tabb, MD, CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, who will serve as CEO of Beth Israel Lahey Health, called the state and federal approvals “an important step forward in making our vision a reality.”

“We appreciate the enormous effort that the Attorney General, her staff and the Federal Trade Commission have devoted to our proposal.  We share their commitment to health care innovation in Massachusetts, and we are eager to build on the strengths of our legacy organizations and deliver on our promise to our patients, their families and our communities,” Tabb said.

Massachusetts’ Health Care Cost Growth benchmark controls the annual growth of total medical spending in the state and is now set at 3.1%. Over the seven-year term, the cap will avoid more than $1 billion of the potential cost increases projected by the state’s Health Policy Commission.

When finalized, the merged, 13-hospital health system will be will one of the largest in the Bay State.

The merger push began in 2017, with Beth Israel and Lahey justifying the consolidation as a market-based attempt to address rising costs, price disparities, and healthcare access issues.

However, the deal has faced headwinds since its inception.

Even as late as this September, the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission noted that the merger would create a health system roughly the same size as Partner’s HealthCare System, the state’s largest health system, which would “increase substantially” market concentration in eastern Massachusetts.

“BILH’s enhanced bargaining leverage would enable it to substantially increase commercial prices that could increase total healthcare spending by an estimated $128.4 million to $170.8 million annually for inpatient, outpatient, and adult primary care services,” MHPC said.

In addition, the commission said spending on specialty physician services could increase by as much as $60 million annually if the merged health system obtains similar prices increases for those services.

“These would be in addition to the price increases the parties would have otherwise received,” the commission wrote. “These figures are likely to be conservative. The parties could obtain these projected price increases, significantly increasing healthcare spending, while remaining lower-priced than Partners.”

Those concerns appeared to have been alleviated on Thursday, when MHPC Commissioner Martin Cohen said “the investments required by the settlement will have a real impact on access to treatment for mental health and substance use disorders for patients across Eastern Massachusetts.”

Healey’s assurance of discontinuance also includes requirements that the merged Beth Israel Lahey Health pledge $71.6 million to support healthcare services for underserved areas.

The deal also requires BILH to strengthen its commitment to MassHealth; engage in business planning with its safety net hospital affiliates; enhance access to mental health and substance use disorder treatment; and retain a third-party monitor to ensure compliance with the terms.

The deal exempts affiliated safety net hospitals from the price-cap constraints. Lawrence General Hospital CEO Dianne J. Anderson said the exemption for her safety net will “ensure a commitment to joint, long-term planning for distribution of health care resources across the region.”

The $71.6 million that BILH will spend over eight years for underserved areas will include:

  • $41 million to fund affiliated community health centers and safety net hospitals, which guarantees support at the systems’ historic levels.
  • At least $8.8 million in additional financial support for affiliated community health centers and safety net hospitals.
  • At least $5 million in strategic investment to expand access to healthcare for low-income communities through community health centers.
  • At least $16.9 million to develop and expand behavioral health services across the BILH system.

“THROUGH THIS SETTLEMENT, BETH ISRAEL LAHEY HEALTH WILL CAP ITS PRICES, STRENGTHEN SAFETY NET PROVIDERS ACROSS THE REGION, AND INVEST IN NEEDED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES.”

 

New York nonprofit healthcare organization hit with $200K HIPAA fine

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/cybersecurity/new-york-nonprofit-healthcare-organization-hit-with-200k-hipaa-fine.html

Image result for HIPAA data breach

 

The Arc of Erie County, a Buffalo, N.Y.-based nonprofit that serves people with developmental disabilities, agreed to pay a $200,000 penalty to the state of New York to resolve allegations it violated HIPAA in a yearslong data breach.

As part of the settlement, Arc of Erie County is required to conduct a thorough risk analysis of vulnerabilities of all electronic equipment and data systems, as well as review its policies and procedures. It must submit a report on its findings to the Attorney General’s Office within 180 days of the settlement.

“The Arc of Erie County’s work serves our most vulnerable New Yorkers — and that comes with the responsibility to protect them and their sensitive personal information,” New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood said in a news release. “This settlement should provide a model to all charities in protecting their communities’ personal information online.”

In early February 2018, Arc of Erie County learned clients’ personal information — including full names, Social Security numbers, gender, race, primary diagnosis codes, IQ scores, insurance information, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth and ages — was exposed on its website.

An investigation determined the information had been publicly accessible in spreadsheets since July 2015 and 3,751 clients were affected. The webpage was intended only for internal use, but the investigation noted several unauthorized third parties accessed the datasets on numerous occasions. Officials said there is no evidence of malware on the system or ongoing communications with outside IP addresses.

The organization notified all affected individuals in March, and it offered them one year of free identity theft protection services.

 

‘Death Certificate Project’ Terrifies California Doctors

https://www.medpagetoday.com/painmanagement/painmanagement/74856?xid=nl_mpt_morningbreak2018-08-31&eun=g885344d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBreak_083118&utm_term=Morning%20Break%20-%20Active%20Users%20-%20180%20days

Related image

Hundreds threatened with disciplinary action for opioid scripts to patients who overdosed.

Brian Lenzkes, MD, got a letter last December from the Medical Board of California that left him shocked and scared.

The licensing agency told him it had received a “complaint filed against you” regarding a patient who died of a prescription overdose in May 2013 — four and a half years earlier.

In stern bold type, the letter’s second paragraph said the man “died from an overdose of hydrocodone, oxycodone, and zolpidem.” The state’s prescription drug database, CURES(California Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System), showed that “Dr. Brian J. Lenzkes had been prescribing long-term excessive amounts of these, including benzos,” and that “it is unknown what conditions the patient suffered from which required such medication.”

The San Diego internist told MedPage Today he’d tried since 2006 to help this complex patient manage pain related to his many problems — so severe they at one point caused him to be admitted to hospice – including diabetic ulcers, congestive heart failure, severe neuropathy, bone infections, and a below-knee amputation, to name a few, he said.

He’d tapered dosages, changed drugs, and tried many other approaches. Though the patient was challenging, he’d “experienced a strong bond” with him, and “he would often bring me homemade barbecue sauce as a thank-you.”

He knew of no complaints about his care of this man. Lenzkes said the patient’s friend told him the man “would have died years earlier if it were not for my encouragement and support.”

If the medical board was after his license, well, the term “witch hunt” crossed Lenzkes’ mind. “I don’t prescribe inappropriately,” he said.

In fact, no patient or family member had filed a complaint against him.

Hundreds threatened

Rather, Lenzkes is one of hundreds of California physicians caught up so far in the medical board’s aggressive “Death Certificate Project,” a program that attempts to stop the epidemic of accidental deaths from prescription opioid overdoses.

The California project takes death certificates in which prescription opioids are listed as a cause, then matches each with the provider — sometimes more than one — who prescribed any controlled substance to that patient within 3 years of death, regardless of whether the particular drug caused the death or whether that doctor prescribed the lethal dose.

At the project’s launch in late 2015, board staff began reviewing 2,694 certificates of death filed in 2012 and 2013 and found 2,256 matches in CURES, showing each provider who wrote an opioid prescription filled by those deceased patients.

Those reports went to medical peer reviewers who, after extensive review, selected 522 prescribers as warranting an investigation of the patients’ files. They included including 450 allopathic physicians against whom the board has opened formal complaints along with 12 osteopathic physicians and 60 nurse practitioners or physician assistants, who were referred to their respective licensing boards. Of the 12 osteopath referrals, seven were closed for insufficient evidence; the other five remain open for investigation.

Of the nearly 450 MDs like Lenzkes who received letters notifying them of a “complaint,” the state Attorney General has filed opioid-related prescribing accusations against nine physicians, Kirchmeyer said. Four of those nine already faced possible disciplinary action on unrelated charges, and saw their accusations amended with new charges regarding opioid prescribing.

For one physician, the accusation referenced deaths of three patients under his care.

The board said 216 cases involving those 450 MDs have now been closed for insufficient evidence or no violation, or the license had already been revoked or surrendered, or the physician had died. As of last week, 38 still await further review of their cases before proceeding; the rest await completion of an investigation.

“Our goal is consumer protection,” the board’s executive director Kimberly Kirchmeyer told MedPage Today. The board wants to “identify physicians who may be inappropriately prescribing to patients and to make sure that those individuals are educated (about opioid guidelines), and where there are violations of the Medical Practices Act, the board takes (disciplinary) action.”

Addressing her board during its quarterly meeting a year ago, Kirchmeyer described the project as an “invaluable” and proactive way to prevent future opioid overdoses by revealing overprescribers — “rather than have to wait for specific complaints to come in,” which are few and far between.

Coroners are required by law to report pathologist findings indicating a death was due to a physician’s gross negligence or incompetence, but the board had received only nine such reports in the prior 2 years, she said.

The board’s project is using death certificates and the CURES database to go beyond the individual fatality and examine a physician’s overall prescribing practices, Kirchmeyer said.

In some cases, investigations triggered by a death certificate identified other, living patients for whom that provider had possibly inappropriately prescribed, she said. That has resulted in a different letter sent directly to such patients saying that the board “is reviewing the quality of care provided to you by Dr. — ” and asking the patient to promptly authorize the doctor to turn over that patient’s medical records to the board. It also threatens to subpoena the records if the patient refuses.

Asked to address physicians’ concerns that these letters could erode patients’ confidence in their doctors, Kirchmeyer reiterated the goal to improve patient safety and said it only sends such letters to patients after a medical consultant “indicated that a physician may be inappropriately prescribing.”

It’s unclear to what extent other states may be targeting putative overprescribers in this way. A California board spokesman said their program was unique, but North Carolina’s medical board also initiates investigations based on patient fatalities involving opioids.

Specifically, North Carolina’s Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative probes clinicians who’ve had at least two opioid-related patient deaths in the preceding 12 months and who prescribed at least 30 tablets within 60 days of the patient’s death, or when licensees have large numbers of patients on 100 milligrams of morphine equivalents (MME) per patient per day.

Letter ‘changed my practice’

On that December day, Lenzkes gathered his patient’s thick file and spent the next nights carefully writing six pages of the summary the board expected from him. Finally, nearly 3 months later, board analyst Erika Calderon exonerated him with a terse letter saying the review was complete: “No further action is anticipated and the file has been closed.”

Lenzkes was lucky. He’d kept good notes and was cleared. But, he said, “it changed my practice of medicine.” From now on, he’s referring patients like that one to pain specialists. “I’m not taking any more. That’s just how I feel.”

One physician who knows others who received these letters described it as “terrifying.” A typical response is to immediately contact an attorney and the malpractice insurance carrier.

Many doctors interviewed who received these letters say it has riddled their lives with stress and self-doubt, and then anger when they wait as long as 9 months, or longer, to hear they’ve been cleared.

Ako Jacintho, MD, a family medicine physician and addiction medicine specialist in San Francisco got a similar letter Dec. 11 about his patient who died on March 21, 2012, from “acute combined methadone and diphenhydramine intoxication.” He’d refilled the patient’s prescription for methadone 10 mg the day before, Jacintho said, but never prescribed diphenhydramine, the antihistamine sold as Benadryl.

“Back when my patient died, there was little warning on the dangers of prescribed opioids, and the Medical Board supported the treatment of intractable pain with prescription narcotics…. pharmaceutical companies said prescribed opioids were safe,” Jacintho said. “Methadone was in vogue for treating pain.”

He’s been waiting to hear back now going on 9 months of silence, despite several requests for a determination. It’s caused him loss of sleep and made it difficult for him to focus.

“I feel like I’ve been shamed,” Jacintho said. He started advising physician colleagues to stop prescribing opioids as he considered getting out of medicine altogether. He also hired an attorney.

“If they can’t see that this was me as a physician doing the best job that I could to help this patient with intractable pain, what am I supposed to do?” he asked.

Physician flight

“You can’t even begin to understand how disruptive and upsetting this is,” said Paul Speckart, MD, another San Diego internist who in March received a similar board letter about his patient who died in late 2012. The cause, Calderon’s letter said, in boldface type, was “carisoprodol, lorazepam, oxycodone, zolpidem and trazodone toxicity. Coronary artery atherosclerosis was the only medical condition noted…. Three providers prescribed heavily to this patient and one of them was noted to have been you.”

Speckart’s eight-page response went back to 1998 in which he documented his many refusals to give the patient scheduled drugs and his efforts to refer her to a pain specialist. In July, Calderon wrote Speckart “there was no problem” with his treatment of that patient, but “your overall pattern of prescribing opioids looks excessive.” He was told to read the guidelines issued by the board in 2014 and the CDC in 2016 and on prescribing controlled substances for pain, which he did.

He does not overly prescribe, he said. The few for whom he does prescribe opioids genuinely need pain relief for their multiple conditions.

As chair of a San Diego County Medical Society’s Emergency Medicine Oversight Commission, emergency room doctor Roneet Lev, MD, heard the physicians’ outcries. “We’ve definitely heard physicians say, ‘I’m done. I’m not going to see these patients; I don’t need this headache.’ And that’s left California without the doctors we need to treat these patients,” Lev said.

Her own study, published earlier this month in the journal Science, tested a gentler approach — a letter directly from the San Diego County medical examiner notifying physicians that a patient they treated died of an opioid overdose, rapidly informing them what happened to their patients. It served as an informed warning, unlike the medical board’s implied threat of disciplinary action.

Lev’s study found that within 3 months of receiving those letters, those physicians prescribed nearly 10% fewer opioid drugs compared with physicians in a control group who were not sent a medical examiner’s letter.

She said the medical board’s approach is “alarming” for several reasons. For starters, most physicians did not have easy access to the CURES database before 2014 to see what other drugs their patients had been prescribed by other providers, a concern since most patients who overdosed did not do so on one drug alone. Mandatory reporting for the system does not start until Oct. 1, 2018.

Second, at the time, there was no uniform standard on the total morphine equivalent dosage doctors should be prescribing, or how much is too much had been in dispute.

Third, the medical board’s approach is simply unrealistic, she said. “You have to remember, there’s still thousands of Americans who are on high-dose opioids, and you can’t just cut them off. They need to be weaned. Our job is to taper them to be safe.”

Lev said she reached out to Ted Mazer, MD, California Medical Association president, and Kelly Pfeifer, director of the California Health Care Foundation’s High-Value Care staff. She hoped to persuade the board to restructure the Death Certificate Project as an educational tool. Otherwise they worry that physicians will fear disciplinary action so much they feel they must hire lawyers, decide to stop taking patients, or refuse to prescribe pain relief.

The California Academy of Family Physicians declined to comment on the board’s project when approached by MedPage Today, but its web page sternly advises doctors to protect themselves by consulting and retaining an attorney “immediately upon contact” from the board regarding a patient who overdosed. “At no point during an investigation should a family physician be without legal counsel,” the organization said.

The California Medical Association’s associate director, Charlie Lawlor, said his group “remains committed to our continued work on effective policies that increase access to proven treatments for patients with addiction and dependency,” but is still reviewing the board’s program and wouldn’t comment on the merits of the project.

Kirchmeyer sought to refute arguments against the program’s tactics. She said all prescribers were held to the standard of care that was in place in 2012 and 2013. The medical board believes in its current approach because the CURES database shows that many deceased patients had received controlled substances from more than one prescriber, she said, and “it’s unclear whether any of these providers were actually aware that their patients were using multiple prescribers.”

Letter toned down

One criticism of the program, that the letters to physicians were far too threatening and inaccurately implied a family member had filed a “complaint,” has resulted in a major rewording, “based on feedback we received from doctors and consumers,” Kirchmeyer said.

Instead of telling them the board received a “complaint,” new letters sent this summer specify the source — records from the state Department of Public Health — and explain that the inquiry is meant to reduce “the alarming number of overdose deaths.”

It specifies that the review is “routine,” and stresses that “just because a patient death occurred, it does not automatically mean the physician deviated from the standard of care.”

Lenzkes, Jacintho, and Speckart said in separate interviews that the board is right to be concerned about overprescribing. “There’s a lot of abuse, we all agree,” Speckart said.

Added Lenzkes: “When you hear a bunch of doctors all at the same time all getting the same letter, and you realize they’re going through the same thing, you see why some are saying [to patients], ‘Sorry, if you have a lot of medical conditions, we’re not going to take care of you.'”

 

 

Humana files suit against 37 drug makers accusing them of price fixing

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/humana-files-suit-against-37-drug-makers-accusing-them-price-fixing?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWlROaE56WXlNV1JrTlRRNSIsInQiOiJtQUlRODhrK2xUNW00em4rcUIyWEg0enJuVFBPXC9DUEl0VGhLTWNNUHFwcmdCMG5FTm9cLzNPbzQ4Sm5pR1hcL1wvSzBvNmU2Z0RFVGloQlBpU0Z4bnFhZmFEWnJUWXVmdHZcL3V1UEd0dzB5MFF5XC96OTNHWUpPVkpyaVRDRTRPaTYraSJ9

Image result for humana headquarters

The conspiracy involving secret meetings resulted in higher prices for insurers, the government and consumers, the lawsuit claims.

Humana has brought a lawsuit against 37 pharmaceutical companies including Novartis, Mylan and Teva, alleging price fixing for numerous generic drugs.

The conspiracy increased the profits of the drug makers and others working with them at the expense of consumers, the government and private payers such as Humana, the lawsuit said.

Humana wants to recover damages it said it incurred from overcharges for certain widely-used generics, according to the lawsuit filed Friday in federal court for the Eastern Division of Pennsylvania.

Humana said the conspiracy is far-reaching among the drug makers to manipulate markets and obstruct generic competition. They agreed to fix, increase, stabilize and/or maintain the price of the drugs specified, along with other drugs, the court document said.

Humana accuses the pharmaceutical companies of secret meetings and communications at public and private events such as trade association meetings held by the Generic Pharmaceutical Association and others.

Humana’s allegations are based on personal knowledge and information made public during ongoing government investigations, the insurer said.

The pricing fixing is also under investigation by federal and state authorities, the lawsuit said.

The Attorneys General of 47 states, Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico have filed a civil enforcement action against most of the named defendants, alleging agreements to fix 15 drug prices, the lawsuit said.

The Department of Justice has convened a grand jury to investigate a number of the defendants for price increases ranging from 100 percent to 400, 2,600 and 8,000 percent, Humana said.

The price increases are consistent with Medicare Part D price increases found by the Government Accountability Office for many of the subject drugs.

Among the drugs for which GAO identified “extraordinary price increases” — defined as a price increase of 100 percent or more — between the first quarter of 2011 and the first quarter of 2015, are, according to Humana, Amitriptyline, an antidepressant; Baclofen, a muscle relaxant and anti-spastic agent; Benazepril, an ACE inhibitor to treat hypertension; Clobetasol, a steroid and anti-inflammatory agent;  Clomipramine, an antidepressant for obsessive compulsive disorder; Digoxin, used to treat heart failure and atrial fibrillation; Divalproex for seizure disorders; Doxycycline (in Hyclate form) an antibiotic; Leflunomide for rheumatoid arthritis; Levothyroxine, a thyroid drug to treat hypothyroidism; Lidocaine, an anesthetic;  Nystatin, an antifungal for skin infections; Pravastatin to lower cholesterol; Propranolol, a beta blocker to treat hypertension; Ursodiol, to decrease the amount of cholesterol produced by the liver; and Verapamil, to treat hypertension, angina and certain heart rhythm disorders.

 

California’s Attorney General Vows National Fight To Defend The ACA

https://californiahealthline.org/news/californias-attorney-general-vows-national-fight-to-defend-the-aca/

Image result for aca

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra pledged Friday to redouble his efforts as the Affordable Care Act’s leading defender, saying attacks by the Trump Administration threaten health care for millions of Americans.

Becerra’s pledge came in response to an announcement from the administration Thursday that it would not defend key parts of the Affordable Care Act in court. The administration instead called on federal courts to scuttle the health law’s protection for people with preexisting medical conditions and its requirement that people buy health coverage.

Becerra accused the administration of going “AWOL.” It “has decided to abandon the hundreds of millions of people who depend on” the law, he said in an interview with California Healthline.

“It’s, simply put, an attack on the health care that millions of Americans have come to count on, and California, being the most successful state in implementing the Affordable Care Act, stands to lose perhaps more than anyone else.”

About 1.5 million Californians buy coverage through the state’s ACA exchange, Covered California, and nearly 4 million have joined Medicaid as a result of the program’s expansion under the law.

The state has been at the forefront in resisting many Trump Administration policies, including on health care and immigration.

“This is not a new experience for us under this new Trump era of having to defend Californians,” Becerra said. In the case of health care, “fortunately we have 16 other  [Democratic attorneys general] who are prepared to do it with us. ”

At issue is a lawsuit filed by 20 Republican state attorneys general on Feb. 26, which charged that Congress’ changes to the law in last year’s tax bill rendered the entire ACA unconstitutional. In the tax law, Congress repealed the penalty for people who fail to have health insurance starting in 2019.

Becerra is leading an effort by Democratic attorney generals from others states and the District of Columbia to defend the ACA against that lawsuit. In May, the court allowed them to “intervene” in the case.

 

Auditor “shocked” by massive billing schemes at rural hospitals

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/questionable-billing-schemes-rural-hospitals-costing-health-insurance-companies-millions/

Image result for Auditor "shocked" by massive billing schemes at rural hospitals

Rural hospitals across the country are closing at the highest rates in decades. Since 2010, 83 have shuttered. Desperate to stay open, some hospitals got caught up in dubious billing schemes. In March, CBS News investigated questionable billing at rural hospitals in Georgia and Florida.

Insurance companies reimburse rural hospitals at higher rates to help keep critical healthcare in those communities. Those higher rates have made rural hospitals attractive targets for schemes that have generated nearly half a billion dollars in allegedly fraudulent billing.

In 2016, Missouri state auditor Nicole Galloway began examining the finances of several rural hospitals in her state. One was Putnam County Memorial, a 15-bed hospital in Unionville, Missouri, struggling to keep its doors open.

“We were shocked….When we started to look at the financial records and notice that tens of millions of dollars were coming through, I remember sitting down at the table with my audit staff and, you know, I just said we gotta dig deeper on this,” Galloway told CBS News’ Jim Axelrod.

Her team discovered a management company called Hospital Partners had swooped in weeks before Putnam was about to close, promising to turn it around. They made deals with labs around the country to funnel billing for blood tests and drug screens through Putnam, which collects higher reimbursement rates as a rural hospital. Putnam kept about 15 percent; most of the money was wired back to the labs and the management company.

“Essentially the hospital appeared to act as a shell company for these questionable lab billings,” Galloway explained. “In a six-month period, the hospital funneled through about $92 million in revenues. To put that in perspective, the previous year their total revenues were $7.5 million.”

And it wasn’t just happening at Putnam. According to court filings reviewed by CBS News, insurance companies are now attempting to claw back nearly a half a billion dollars they paid rural hospitals across the country with similar billing arrangements which they call “fraudulent.” They all declined our requests for an interview so we sat down with Jason Mehta, a former federal prosecutor who specialized in healthcare fraud.

“The question’s gonna be did the laboratories intend to cheat? Did they intend to trick? Did they mislead the insurance companies? Because simply making extra money isn’t a crime in and of itself. It’s the question of, was someone tricked? Was some deceived?” Mehta said.

Insurance companies say one way labs deceived them was paying kickbacks to healthcare providers for specimens they could then bill at the higher reimbursement rates. CBS News obtained a voicemail of a lab representative soliciting samples from a rehab center in California.

“He would send about, as soon as you guys sent 300 samples he would just send you $100,000 right then and there,” the representative is heard saying on the message.

“If I heard that message and we were talking about Medicare money, I would be very, very concerned and I would be opening an investigation immediately,” Mehta said. “In my experience, some of the most sophisticated actors in this space, some of the ones that….get the most amount of money from the healthcare programs, are those that know exactly where the line is, and skirt right up to that line.”

What Mehta told us could cross the line is a key finding of Nicole Galloway’s audit.

“Several months after the questionable lab billings had started, there was no operating lab in the hospital,” she said.

Which begs the question, how could they be billing for lab tests if there was no lab in the hospital?

In March, Blue Cross Blue Shield filed a $60 million lawsuit against Hospital Partners, alleging their arrangement with labs was a “fraudulent scheme.” Hospital Partners is suing Galloway, claiming she had no right to audit Putnam.

“They (Hospital Partners) are pushing back on us but I will tell you that will not stop me from doing my job on behalf of taxpayers,” Galloway said.

In a statement, Hospital Partners said “Putnam County Memorial Hospital is authorized by law to assign and bill for clinical laboratory testing provided at a reference lab.” On Tuesday, the Missouri Attorney General’s office told “CBS This Morning” it is actively investigating this matter.