Monday, June 24, 2013

Collaboration Encouraged at Patient-Centered Diabetes Care Event


Published Online: Friday, June 21, 2013

A session hosted by the American Journal of Managed Care brought together an array of groups involved in managing and treating diabetes.

In order to best serve diabetes patients, all those involved in managing the condition—including physicians, pharmacists, health plans, policymakers, and drug developers—must have a seat at the table. To foster collaboration among a number of these groups, a session titled “Patient-Centered Diabetes Care: Future Directions” was held at the University of Chicago Law School on June 20. The session was hosted by the American Journal of Managed Care in conjunction with Precision Health Economics.

The event was timed to take place just before the beginning of the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association (ADA), which is being held June 21 to 25 in Chicago. Earlier this year, the ADA announced the results of a study finding that the total economic burden of diabetes in the United States reached $245 billion in 2012, a 41% increase since 2007. In March 2013, the American Journal of Managed Care launched Evidence-Based Diabetes Management, an indexed news publication, to help create a shared forum for physicians, health plans, pharmaceutical leaders, and policymakers.

“When the ADA announced the rise in the financial and human toll that diabetes takes from our economy and from the lives of everyday Americans, it was alarming, but sadly, not entirely surprising,” said Brian Haug, president of Intellisphere Managed Markets, which publishes the American Journal of Managed Care and Evidence-Based Diabetes Management. “Because we are in close touch with the medical community and have been for nearly two decades, we were already responding to this crisis. This week’s meeting is a continuation of that response.”

The event’s keynote speaker was Anne Peters, MD, CDE, director of the clinical diabetes program at the University of Southern California. Panel discussions addressed topics including individualizing diabetes patient treatment, the effect of diabetes patient behavior on quality of care and outcomes, and methods of improving patient adherence to diabetes medications and therapies. In the closing address, Deneen Vojta, MD, senior vice president for business initiatives and clinical affairs at UnitedHealth Group, discussed how to develop relationships between health insurers and drug developers.

Pharmacists also have the potential to play an important role in improving diabetes treatment outcomes. A study published in the May 15, 2013, edition of the American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy found that type 2 diabetes patients who were treated by a team of providers including a clinical pharmacist were significantly more likely to reach blood glucose, LDL cholesterol, and blood pressure goals than those treated by a primary care physician alone. (Click here to read our article about this study.)

At Pharmacy Times, we offer regular coverage of news relating to diabetes treatment. Earlier this month, we covered a study published in BMJ finding that use of some statins can lead to increased risk of new-onset diabetes. In April, we covered the newly released diabetes treatment guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

The print edition of Pharmacy Times regularly features Diabetes Watch, a round-up of notable recent studies. Our May 2013 issue included a review of diabetes apps that harness the power of mobile technology to help patients monitor and improve their condition. And, for a comprehensive look at diabetes as it relates to pharmacy, our October 2012 Diabetes Issue is an invaluable resource.


http://mobile.pharmacytimes.com/news/Collaboration-Encouraged-at-Patient-Centered-Diabetes-Care-Event

St. Louis raising $100M to keep startups in town


June 23, 2013 11:09 am by  | 0 Comments
St. Louis arch
Old St. Louis wants to become hot with young startups.
Civic and business leaders are raising $100 million to kick the region’s burgeoning startup scene up a notch. Dubbed the Regional Entrepreneurship Initiative (REI), it seeks to attract venture capital over the next five years to support the “rapidly growing entrepreneurial ecosystem and high-growth startup activity” as well as fund new ventures.
“A year ago, I asked what we needed to provide the best environment to help our best startups grow, and the answer came back with a resounding ‘get them more money,’” said St. Louis County Executive Charlie A. Dooley. “Now we are saying we need the money and are putting an aggressive plan in place to raise that capital. This guaranties the best new companies will stay in St. Louis and thrive for years to come.”
St. Louis is not exactly what you’d call a startup hub. The dominant industries are manufacturing, healthcare, and shipping, and the city is home to large corporations like Anheuser-Busch, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Purina, and Energizer. It may not be a “bastion of progressivism,” but this is beginning to change.
Local entrepreneur Aaron Perlut said that over the past couple years, the region’s business and entrepreneurial ecosystem has begun to dramatically evolve and flourish and is becoming a “tech town.” Technology job postings are on the rise, as are salaries, and St. Louis is attracting enough human, intellectual, physical, and financial capital to emerge as a center of innovation. A startup called LockerDome recently closed $6 million in Series A financing, “big data” company Appistry pulled in nearly $40 million from private investors, and CrowdSource.com closed $12.5 million.
“St. Louis is seeing an incredible amount of early-stage tech activity right now, which is leading to a strong funnel of great deals,” said Gabe Lozano, the chief executive officer of LockerDome. “Without question, we will be globally recognized as a top 10 city in technology within 10 years.”
Square cofounder Jim McKelvey is a St. Louis native and said that in the past, many St. Louis startups left the area to get their business off the ground, but now that migration is reversing. REI is designed to fuel this trend by attracting new talent and keeping native success stories home. This requires access to capital, which is one of the main roadblocks that entrepreneurs outside of the tech bubble face, and it’s one of the main reasons they head to the Valley.
The impact that a thriving startup scene can have on the economy is well known, and President Obama is a vocal supporter of initiatives that support technology and innovation. REI is not only about capital flow but also about strengthening St. Louis’s ecosystem as a whole. Other components include building a regional customer relationship management system (CRM) to track startup assistance, investment, and impact; developing a common measurement system to track results; creating marketing and communications campaigns aimed at expanding awareness and increasing participation from people inside and outside the region; establishing programs to include minority, female, veteran, and immigrant entrepreneurs; and setting up regional mentorship programs. The $100 million will also contribute funding to pre-seed companies as well as increase the availability of Series A venture capital.
REI received a $1.5 million grant from the U.S. Economic Development Administration, will be entered at AccelerateSTL.org, and includes a coalition of public and private sector leaders as well as the region’s leading entrepreneurs and venture capital community. Some of the existing players in the St. Louis scene include Cultivation Capital, Arch Angels, Billiken Angels, and iSELECT Fund. There are also the incubator programs Arch Grants and Capital Innovators.
The money hasn’t been raised yet, but the passion is there. It is, after all, a city with a lot to offer. It has the Gateway Arch, the Cardinals, and a wealth of American history. Plus, it’s home to the gooey butter cake, which for me is enticement enough to go.
This article originally appeared on VentureBeat


Read more: http://medcitynews.com/2013/06/st-louis-raising-100m-to-keep-startups-in-town/#ixzz2X8gqaIPM

Texas Makes Changes To Medicaid Laws And Programs


Last Updated: June 24 2013
Article by Kimberly J. Gold and Ellyn L. Sternfield




Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a series of bills into law last week modifying some of the state's Medicaid statutes and programs.  The laws will take effect on September 1, 2013.
While the legislation was purportedly aimed at enhancing the state’s ability to detect and prevent Medicaid fraud, waste, and abuse, in fact many of the statutory provisions were added to comply with federal mandates necessary to secure ongoing federal funding for the Texas Medicaid program to ensure  continued eligibility for incentive recoveries under its civil false claims act. 
The highlights of the new laws are as follows:
  • S.B. 746 brings the state's civil false claims act, the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act (TMFPA), into compliance with the federal requirement that the state statute be "at least as effective" in rewarding and facilitatingqui tam actions as the federal false claims act.  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General gave Texas until September 1, 2013 to amend the TMFPA so that the state may continue toqualify for a 10-percentage-point increase in its share of recovery of civil Medicaid false claims judgments and settlements.
The bill extends false claims liability to any person who or entity that commits an "unlawful act" by conspiring to otherwise violate the TMFPA, or who conceals, avoids or decreases their obligations to repay funds to Medicaid.   The bill also makes procedural changes to the state civil false claims statute of limitations and public disclosure provisions, resulting in provisions that parallel those in the federal false claims act.
  • Another bill, S.B. 1803, amends the Texas Government Code to meet federal requirements allowing the state to continue receiving matching funds from the federal government for the state's Medicaid program. Among other provisions, the bill requires the Texas Medicaid program's Office of Inspector General to conduct preliminary investigations of any complaint of Medicaid fraud or abuse, mandates referrals of fraud to the Texas Medicaid Fraud Control Unit or other law enforcement entities, and requires the Medicaid program to impose a payment hold on claims for reimbursement when credible allegations of fraud exist.
  • S.B. 8 amends the Texas Government Code to require the Medicaid program to establish a data analysis unit intended to detect data trends and identify anomalies relating to compliance with Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) requirements.  The bill also limits the marketing activities of CHIP and Medicaid providers and changes the licensure of non-emergency medical transportation companies and emergency medical services providers, with a two-year moratorium on new licenses for emergency medical services providers beginning September 1, 2013.
  • H.B. 658 amends the Civil Practice and Remedies Code so that plaintiffs cannot collect post-judgment interest on any portion of a damages award that includes money subject to Medicare subrogation.  The bill responds to concerns that post judgment interest accrues in Medicare subrogation lien cases, causing defendants to pay additional costs due to the delay of a third party's issuance of a demand letter.
While at first blush the bills appear technical in nature, the result may be increased Medicaid program oversight and enhanced opportunities for whistleblowers and state enforcement authorities to bring Medicaid-based civil false claims actions in Texas.  These new laws, combined with the swelling ranks of Medicaid Recovery Audit Contractors and similar entities, mean that Texas health care providers will likely see more scrutiny of their Medicaid billing activities.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

New Downloadable Article "Has HHSC-OIG Misled the Texas Legislature?"


Dallas, Tx (PRWEB) June 11, 2013

A new 8-page downloadable article is now available online questioning testimony given by representatives of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission Office of the Inspector General in January and February, 2013, to various Texas legislative committees regarding the agency's investigations into Medicaid fraud.
The article is entitled "Has HHSC-OIG Misled the Texas Legislature?" and begins with the following introductory paragraphs:
"Over the last year, the Health and Human Service’s Commission Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) has been in the spotlight on Texas Medicaid. Representatives of OIG -- Inspector General Douglas Wilson and his apparent deputy for enforcement Jack Stick -- have made numerous public statements regarding Medicaid fraud in Texas, in particular about dental orthodontic services.
"One of OIG’s chief purposes is to interdict Medicaid fraud. Certainly every decent person is in favor of stopping fraud. But OIG has painted a picture of rampant fraud by orthodontic dentists -- a picture which is not, at this point, borne out by court decisions.
"In fact, OIG has only had its claims on rampant fraud tested in court (the State Office of Administrative Hearings, “SOAH”) one time. That decision, which upended OIG's claims, has been upheld by an HHSC administrative judge. This precedent-setting decision -- that of Harlingen Family Dentistry (“HFD”)* -- came out last September and was upheld in early January of this year."
"This precedent-setting case is well-known to OIG, Medicaid providers and their attorneys. Yet OIG statements to the legislature this session ignored this legal decision and its implications for future orthodontic cases. In fact, OIG has seriously downplayed the facts in several instances. One could even go so far as to say that legislators were misled."
The article goes onto compare testimony given to various committees of the Texas Legislature in this light.
The article can be downloaded here.
  • SOAH Docket No. 529-13-3180 Harlingen Family Dentistry vs. Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Read the full story at http://www.prweb.com/releases/office-of-inspector/general-texas/prweb10813691.htm


Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1297473#ixzz2X7tR1MCv

More than 300,000 uninsured in Valley, federal official says at healthcare fraud conference - The Monitor: Local News



McALLEN — The billions lost to fraud and the thousands of uninsured here are interconnected inside the broad and complicated world of health care.
To address the topics, the two-day Rio Grande Valley Healthcare Fraud and Compliance Conference was held at the McAllen Convention Center. It ended Wednesday and brought hundreds of healthcare providers together to learn more.

Keynote speaker Majorie McColl Petty said 4.8 million uninsured Texans will be able to enroll via a state Health Insurance Marketplace, created under the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA), beginning Oct. 1.
President Barack Obama appointed Petty as director of region VI — which includes Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana — under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
In Hidalgo and Cameron counties, there are 328,941 uninsured residents, according to information Petty provided. The area, she said, is among the top seven in the nation with large uninsured populations.
Employers and existing federal insurance programs like Medicaid and Medicare — for the low-income and elderly, respectively — already provide insurance, Petty said.
“But, there’s a large population that is left uncovered,” she explained, saying state marketplaces are aimed at this group.
Starting Jan. 1, 2014, plans selected via the marketplace will take effect.
The Texas marketplace, or insurance exchange, will be run by the federal government because state leaders have said they will not implement it. Texas is also one of more than a dozen states that have opted out of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, though residents will still pay federal taxes for the program.
An obvious proponent of the ACA, Petty listed a number of points about the federal legislation she said has begun to shift people’s thinking on health care and spark important dialogues.
The federal reform, she said, has also allowed for changes in the way services are carried out that help curtail fraud.
“I don’t think we could be at a better place in time,” she told a large audience, adding that healthcare reform has been a hot topic for decades.
Rachanna Rodriguez, director of programs for Senior Community Outreach Services, Inc. — the nonprofit group hosting the event — said it was the first of its kind on such a large scale. FBI representatives and other officials spoke to healthcare providers about how to avoid, prevent and report fraud.
McAllen Mayor Jim Darling attended a session with Petty along with officials from other cities, public agencies and hospital administrators. He said for cities, health care is a crucial economic component also tied to the well-being of residents.
“It’s important that we do it right,” he said. “It’s hard to get that kind of education in any one place, so I think this is a fantastic opportunity for (healthcare providers). It’s a great program.”
Petty couldn’t immediately point to federal data supporting the widespread claim that the Valley is the second-ranked hot spot for federal healthcare fraud. She declined to discuss factors why, saying it would be speculation.
“It’s everybody’s responsibility to, just like with the Senior Medicare Patrol, to monitor it — to be certain that all of us are being responsible and scrutinizing our bills,” she said.
Senior Medicare Patrol, a federally funded program, recruits volunteers who conduct outreach about healthcare fraud among seniors.
As Rodriguez, who is also involved with the SMP, closed her own remarks, she said fraud has damaged the reputation of healthcare providers here.
“That overshadows anything and everything that you do that’s good,” she said to the audience.
Fraud is so widespread, Rodriguez said, that most people at the conference likely know of someone who’s been busted.
“So, today I end with a question: Who’s next?” she said.
Go to www.healthcare.gov/ to learn more about the ACA and state marketplace.

More than 300,000 uninsured in Valley, federal official says at healthcare fraud conference - The Monitor: Local News

Pierce County oncologists settles health care fraud claim | U.S. District Court



JUNE 23, 2013 · 3:38 PM


Dr. Alfred H. Chan, an oncologist in Lakewood and his family, have agreed to pay the United States $3.1 million to settle allegations that he and his wife defrauded federal health care programs by significantly and repeatedly overbilling for cancer treatment medications.
From at least April 2006 through April 2009, the government contends that Dr. Chan and his wife Judy Chan intentionally inflated claims to Medicare, TRICARE, and other federal health care programs, resulting in a loss to the government estimated at over $1 million.  Today’s settlement represents a recovery of almost three times the estimated loss to federal health care programs.
“Dr. Chan and Judy Chan blatantly and persistently defrauded the government of more than a million dollars and traded the safety of cancer patients for their own personal gain,” said U.S. Attorney Jenny A. Durkan. “They continue to try to avoid criminal sanctions by remaining outside the U.S.  This civil settlement recoups the financial damage they inflicted on taxpayer funded programs.”
The government was alerted to the Chans’ fraud through a “qui tam” or “whistleblower” lawsuit brought under the False Claims Act by one of Dr. Chan’s former employees, Ruth Ruckman.  Ms. Ruckman observed that Dr. Chan – with the assistance of his wife, Judy – routinely billed federal healthcare programs for twice (or more) the amount of cancer treatment drugs actually administered to his patients.  The couple then destroyed records and falsified patients’ medical records in order to conceal the fraud.  Ms. Ruckman provided the government with Dr. Chan’s treatment orders, which showed the actual dosages of drugs administered to certain patients, and the invoices, which showed how much Dr. Chan overbilled for the treatments.
Upon learning of the government’s investigation, the Chans attempted to sell, transfer, and conceal millions of dollars in assets in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to prevent the government from recovering its overpayments.  In February 2011, the Chans fled to Taiwan.  A grand jury sitting in the Western District of Washington has returned a criminal indictment against Alfred and Judy Chan relating to their fraudulent conduct.
Pursuant to the False Claims Act, Ms. Ruckman is entitled to share in the government’s recovery and will receive $620,000 of the $3.1 million settlement for exposing the Chans’ fraudulent conduct.
Government agencies supporting and/or participating in the successful resolution of this matter include: the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services; the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, Defense Criminal Investigative Service; the Office of Inspector General of the Office of Personnel Management; the TRICARE Management Activity Office of General Counsel; the Washington State Health Care Authority; and the Washington State Attorney General’s Office.


Charges against Detroit-area doctors add to long list of local health care fraud, prescription drug dealing cases

Khalil AlHajal | kalhajal@mlive.comBy Khalil AlHajal | kalhajal@mlive.com 
Follow on Twitter
on June 22, 2013 at 8:00 AM, updated June 22, 2013 at 8:07 AM
Email
pills.JPGA long list of Detroit-area health care professionals have been accused in schemes to defraud insurance providers and illegally distribute prescription drugs in recent months. 
DETROIT, MI -- Two local doctors were charged in an indictment unsealed Friday with health care fraud and illegal distribution of prescription drugs.
The federal case adds to a long list of Metro Detroit health care professionals recently accused of defrauding Medicare and Medicaid of millions of dollars, and in the process releasing highly addictive drugs into the black market.
The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs within the last 10 days announced license suspensions of four Detroit-area pharmacists and a physician's assistant after convictions in similar cases.
Hussein Awada, 43, and Luis Collazo, 53, are accused in the most recent indictment of billing Medicare and other insurance providers for unnecessary testing and procedures performed at two Warren locations of Midwest Family Practice, according to the U.S. Attorney's office.
They're also charged with paying patient recruiters with drugs like Oxycodone, Roxicodone, and Opana.
James Lyons, 39, of Detroit is also charged in the case as an alleged recruiter.
Medicare paid more than $6.6 million in patient services and prescriptions issued at the practice from December 2010 through 2012, according to the indictment.
(View the indictment here.)
Federal agents seized more than $600,000 and three automobiles during the investigation.
“These charges represent a serious abuse of the health care system," said Detroit FBI Special Agent in Charge Bob Foley. "Those motivated by greed who unlawfully take from a system designed to care for patients will be tirelessly pursued by the FBI and prosecuted for their crimes.”
After Awada's offices were raided last year, he called the surfacing allegations against him "preposterous and baseless."
The state Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs over the last 10 days announced a series of separate health care license suspensions in similar cases:
- Pharmacist Babubhai Patel of Canton, convicted in February health care fraud conspiracy and distribution of controlled substances, sentenced to 17 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $17 million in restitution.
- Pharmacist Viralkumar Thaker of Findlay, Ohio, convicted in February of health care fraud and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay $215,653.00 in restitution.
- Pharmacist Lokesh Tayal of Northville, convicted in January of health care fraud conspiracy and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, sentenced to five years, eight months in prison and ordered to pay more than $3 million in restitution.
- Pharmacist Brijesh Rawal of Canton convicted in January of health care fraud conspiracy and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, sentenced to five years, eight months in prison and ordered to pay more than $1.7 million in restitution.
- Physician’s assistant John Roberts of Mount Pleasant, convicted in October 2012 of conspiracy to pay and receive health care kickbacks, sentenced to four months in prison and ordered to pay $70,000 in restitution.

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2013/06/charges_against_detroit-area_d.html

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Register Now for Risk Adjustment Certification Webinar

National Certification for Risk Adjustment Coders and Auditors

Stakeholders: Register Now for Roundtable / Webinar

To Be Held on Thursday, July 25, 2013 from 12:30 to 1:30 (est time)


Registration is Limited, Please Do Not Wait...

Accountability begins inside the industry. We must stop empowering the legal system’s assault on medicine. Education is the only way to a sustainable system, and change must be implemented at the initial point of contact for it to be effective. 

This "Town Hall Meeting" will unveil our roadmap to achieving a National Certification and provide a forum for feedback, thoughts, ideas and comments. We welcome all stakeholders to join us!

Register Now: http://www.ermconsultinginc.com/mra-certified-coders-and-auditors/


How the New HIPAA Regulations Affect Billing Companies and Their Subcontractors as Business Associates - HBMA - Healthcare Billing and Management Association for 1st and 3rd Party Billers - Medical Billing, Practice Management

How the New HIPAA Regulations Affect Billing Companies and Their Subcontractors as Business Associates

Develop an Action Plan for Your Copmany and Subcontractors

An article by Robert A. Polisky, Esq.,  taken from the May/June issue of HBMA Billing.On January 25, 2013, the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (OCR) published the anticipated final omnibus rule (the Final Rule). This rule created significant changes to the Privacy, Security, Breach Notification, and Enforcement Rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), many of which are required by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act). The Final Rule also implements changes to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.
The scope of the Final Rule is extensive, and enhances OCR's ability to enforce HIPAA. In the press release announcing the Final Rule, OCR Director Leon Rodriguez proclaimed that the Final Rule "marks the most sweeping changes to the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules since they were first implemented" and "strengthen[s] the ability of my office to vigorously enforce the HIPAA privacy and security protections…." Individuals and entities affected by the Final Rule must comply with most of its provisions by September 23, 2013.
This article addresses key provisions of the Final Rule applicable to billing companies and their subcontractors, enforcement changes, and recommended action items needed for compliance by billing companies and their subcontractors.

KEY PROVISIONS

BUSINESS ASSOCIATES AND THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS

Expanded Definition of "Business Associate"
The Final Rule expands the definition of a "business associate" to include any individual or entity that creates, receives, maintains, or transmits protected health information (PHI) on behalf of a covered entity. Companies that code, bill, and/or collect claims on behalf of a health care provider (i.e., a covered entity), are business associates under HIPAA. Notably, the Final Rule includes subcontractors that create, receive, maintain, or transmit PHI on behalf of a business associate as business associates themselves. Thus, any subcontractors that a billing company engages to assist in coding, billing, or collections, and any subcontractors that store or transmit any healthcare records on the billing company's behalf, are business associates of the billing company.

Direct Liability
As business associates, the Final Rule requires billing companies and their subcontractors to comply with the Security Rule's administrative, physical, and technical safeguard requirements as well as with the Security Rule's policies and procedures and documentation requirements. These requirements apply to business associates in the same manner as they apply to covered entities, such that billing companies and their subcontractors can be held civilly and criminally liable for violations of these requirements. Similarly, the Final Rule applies certain Privacy Rule requirements to business associates and establishes direct liability of business associates for violations of these requirements. A billing company does not need to provide a notice of privacy practices or designate a privacy official unless the covered entity designated such a responsibility in the billing company's business associate agreement.

Specifically, billing companies and their subcontractors, as business associates, have direct civil and criminal liability exposure for the following items.
  1. impermissible uses and disclosures of PHI
  2. failure to provide breach notification to the covered entity
  3. failure to provide access to a copy of electronic PHI to either the covered entity, the individual, or the individual's designee (whichever is specified in the business associate agreement)
  4. failure to disclose PHI to OCR where required by OCR to investigate or determine the business associate's compliance with HIPAA
  5. failure to provide an accounting of disclosures
  6. failing to enter into business associate agreements with subcontractors that create or receive PHI on the business associate's behalf
  7. failure to comply with the requirements of the Security Rule
Billing companies and their subcontractors also remain contractually liable for all other Privacy Rule obligations that are included in their business associate agreements.
Business Associate Agreements
The Final Rule clarifies that a covered entity is not required to enter into a business associate agreement with a billing company's subcontractor. Rather, the billing company that engaged a subcontractor to perform a function or service involving the use or disclosure of PHI is required to enter into a business associate agreement with the subcontractor. Each business associate agreement in the business associate chain needs to be at least as restrictive as the agreement above it in the chain with respect to permissible uses and disclosures of PHI.
The Final Rule expands the requirements of a business associate agreement by obligating a business associate to comply, where applicable, with the Security Rule with regard to electronic PHI; report breaches of unsecured PHI to the covered entity; and ensure that any subcontractors that create or receive PHI on its behalf agree to the same restrictions and conditions that apply to the business associate with respect to such information.

Transition Period
The Final Rule delays compliance until September 22, 2014 for a covered entity or business associate to enter into a business associate agreement with a business associate or subcontractor if, prior to January 25, 2013, the covered entity or business associate had a business associate agreement with the business associate or subcontractor, as applicable, that complied with HIPAA prior to the Final Rule (unless the business associate agreement was modified or actively renewed between March 26, 2013 and September 23, 2013). In all other cases, covered entities and business associates will need to execute business associate agreements with their business associates and subcontractors no later than September 23, 2013.

MODIFICATION TO THE BREACH NOTIFICATION RULE

Background
Under the HITECH Act, a covered entity is required to notify affected individuals and OCR following discovery of a breach of unsecured PHI; a covered entity also needs to notify the media of a breach involving more than 500 residents of a state or jurisdiction. A business associate, in turn, is required to notify a covered entity following discovery of a breach of unsecured PHI at or by the business associate.On August 24, 2009, OCR issued an interim final rule implementing the HITECH Act's breach notification provisions ("Breach Notification Interim Rule"). In the Breach Notification Interim Rule, a "breach" is defined as the acquisition, access, use, or disclosure of PHI in a manner not permitted under the Privacy Rule that "compromises the security or privacy" of the PHI, with certain exceptions. Moreover, under the Breach Notification Interim Rule, "compromises the security or privacy" of the PHI is defined to mean that an impermissible use or disclosure of PHI poses a significant risk of financial, reputational, or other harm to the individual (the "harm standard").
Revised Definition of "Breach"
The Final Rule significantly revises the definition of "breach" to clarify that an impermissible use or disclosure of PHI is presumed to be a breach unless the covered entity or business associate, as applicable, demonstrates that there is a low probability that the PHI has been compromised. By replacing the "harm standard" with this "low probability" standard, it is more likely under the Final Rule than under the Breach Notification Interim Rule that covered entities and business associates will determine that an impermissible use or disclosure of PHI "compromises the security or privacy" of the PHI, resulting in many required breach notifications that would not have been required previously.
Modification of Risk Assessment
Under the Final Rule, to determine whether there is a low probability that PHI has been compromised, covered entities and business associates need to conduct a risk assessment that considers at least the following factors:
  • the nature and extent of the PHI involved, including the types of identifiers and the likelihood of re-identification;
  • the unauthorized person who used the PHI or to whom the disclosure was made;
  • whether the PHI was actually acquired or viewed; and
  • the extent to which the risk to the PHI has been mitigated.
If an evaluation of the above factors, taken together, fails to demonstrate that there is a low probability that PHI has been compromised, breach notification will be required.

RIGHT TO RESTRICT DISCLOSURE TO A HEALTH PLAN

Under the Final Rule, health care providers, upon request from an individual, must agree to restrict disclosure of PHI about the individual to a health plan if the disclosure would be for the purpose of carrying out payment or healthcare operations, and is not otherwise required by law, or the PHI pertains solely to a healthcare item or service for which the individual, or person acting on the individual's behalf (other than the health plan), has paid the covered entity in full. To avoid payment issues, a health care provider may want to require payment in full at the time of the individual's request for a restriction. Health care providers may request assistance from billing companies to comply with this new restricted disclosure requirement.

ENFORCEMENT

Discretion
The Final Rule gives OCR discretion to use informal means to resolve HIPAA violations. However, OCR is permitted to impose a civil monetary penalty without exhausting informal resolution efforts, especially when the HIPAA violation is due to willful neglect. The Final Rule also allows OCR to coordinate with other law enforcement agencies, such as state attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission, with respect to pursuing remedies against HIPAA violators.
Tiered Penalty Amounts
Under the HITECH Act, there are four tiers of increasing penalty amounts that correspond to the levels of culpability associated with a HIPAA violation. The minimum fines range between $100 and $50,000 per violation, and are capped at $1.5 million for all violations of the same HIPAA provision during any calendar year (see below table). The lowest category of violation covers situations where the covered entity or business associate did not know, and by exercising reasonable diligence would not have known, of the HIPAA violation. The second lowest category of violation applies to violations due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. The third category applies to situations where the violation was due to willful neglect and was corrected within 30 days of when the covered entity or business associate knew, or should have known, of the violation. The fourth category applies to situations where the violation was due to willful neglect and not corrected within 30 days of when the covered entity or business associate knew, or should have known, of the violation.
The Final Rule modifies the definition of "reasonable cause" to mean "an act or omission in which a covered entity or business associate knew, or by exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that the act or omission violated [HIPAA], but in which the covered entity or business associate did not act with willful neglect." The Final Rule keeps the definition of "willful neglect" as the "conscious, intentional failure, or reckless indifference to the obligation to comply" with HIPAA.
Counting Violations
In the preamble to the Final Rule, OCR states that how it counts HIPAA violations for purposes of calculating a civil monetary penalty varies depending on the circumstances surrounding the violation. OCR explains that where multiple individuals are affected by a HIPAA violation (e.g., a breach of unsecured PHI), it is anticipated that the number of identical HIPAA violations would be counted by the number of individuals affected. OCR also explained that, with respect to continuing violations (e.g., a lack of appropriate safeguards for a period of time), it is anticipated that the number of identical HIPAA violations would be counted on a per day basis (i.e., the number of days the covered entity or business associate did not have appropriate safeguards in place to protect the PHI). OCR notes that in many HIPAA breach cases, there would be an impermissible use or disclosure as well as a safeguards violation, for each of which OCR would be entitled to calculate a separate civil monetary penalty. Needless to say, the amount of civil monetary penalties that could be imposed against a billing company or one of its subcontractors for a HIPAA violation can be quite substantial.
Factors Used to Determine a Penalty
The Final Rule lists the following five factors that OCR will consider in determining the amount of a civil monetary penalty.
  1. the nature and extent of the HIPAA violation, including the number of individuals affected and the duration of the violation
  2. the nature and extent of the harm resulting from the violation, including physical, financial, and reputational harm, and any hindrance to an individual's ability to obtain healthcare
  3. the history of prior compliance with HIPAA, including whether the current violation is the same/similar to prior indications of noncompliance by the covered entity or business associate and their attempts to correct that noncompliance
  4. the financial condition of the covered entity or business associate, including any financial difficulties that could have affected compliance and whether a civil monetary penalty could jeopardize the future provision of healthcare
  5. such other matters as justice may require
Agency Liability
The Final Rule makes covered entities and business associates liable for the acts of their business associate agents, regardless of whether the covered entity or business associate knew of the violation or had a compliant business associate agreement in place. According to OCR, the key factor in determining whether an agency relationship exists between a covered entity and its business associate, or between a business associate and its subcontractor, is the principal's right to control the agent's conduct in the course of performing a service on behalf of the principal. OCR observes that a business associate agent's conduct generally is within the scope of agency when its conduct occurs during the performance of the assigned work or incident to such work, regardless of whether the work was done carelessly, a mistake was made in the performance, or the business associate disregarded a covered entity's specific instruction. OCR further observes that, in contrast, a business associate agent's conduct generally is outside the scope of agency when its conduct is solely for its own benefit (or that of a third party), or it pursues a course of conduct not intended to serve any purpose of the covered entity. To protect itself, a billing company's services agreement with a subcontractor should specify that the subcontractor is engaged as an independent contractor, not as an agent, and the billing company does not have the right to control the subcontractor's performance.

RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS

Although billing companies and their subcontractors have until September 23, 2013 to fully comply with the Final Rule, they should begin preparing soon in light of the significant number of new or modified compliance obligations. In particular:
  • Covered entities will need to revise, negotiate, and execute business associate agreements with billing companies compliant with the Final Rule by September 23, 2013 to the extent they did not have business associate agreements in place as of January 25, 2013 that were HIPAA compliant. They have until September 22, 2014 to do so to the extent they had business associate agreements in place as of January 25, 2013 that were HIPAA compliant. OCR gives a fair amount of latitude in the content of business associate agreements, so it is important for billing companies to ensure that they are not overcommitting to responsibilities or deadlines that are not required under HIPAA.
  • Billing companies that use subcontractors that create, receive, maintain, or transmit PHI on their behalf will need to draft, negotiate, and execute business associate agreements with them by September 23, 2013. Billing companies will need to ensure that these business associate agreements are at least as stringent as their business associate agreements with covered entities, and enable billing companies to meet deadlines in their business associate agreements with covered entities.
  • Billing companies, including subcontractors, will need to conduct a security risk assessment, implement a written HIPAA security plan, designate a security official, and create certain written HIPAA privacy policies by September 23, 2013 to the extent they have not already done so. OCR has posted guidance on compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule found at www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/ hipaa/administrative/securityrule that may be helpful to billing companies and their subcontractors and facilitate their compliance efforts.
  • Billing companies and their subcontractors will need to perform a gap analysis to determine what HIPAA policies and procedures need to be revised to comply with the Final Rule, and then will need to revise them by September 23, 2013 based on the gap analysis.
  • Billing companies and their subcontractors will need to update by September 23, 2013 their breach notification policies and any tools concerning how to conduct a risk assessment to determine whether breach notification is required.
  • Healthcare providers may ask billing companies to implement by September 23, 2013 a method to flag or make a notation in the record with respect to PHI concerning an item or service paid in full by an individual – or person acting on the individual's behalf (other than a health plan) – to ensure that such information is not inadvertently sent to or made accessible to a health plan for payment or healthcare operations purposes, such as audits by the health plan.
  • Billing companies and their subcontractors will need to update their HIPAA training materials and then train their workforce members (i.e., employees, volunteers, trainees, and other persons under their direct control) by September 23, 2013 to comply with HIPAA.
Given the breadth and potential penalties under the Final Rule, billing companies and their subcontractors should review their data flows (i.e., the complete lifecycle of PHI that they create, receive, maintain, or transmit) and then perform an updated risk analysis based on that review, including a risk analysis of mobile devices. Billing companies and their subcontractors will need to determine whether to encrypt these devices in light of the increasing prevalence of large penalties imposed by OCR on entities whose mobile devices, such as laptop computers and smartphones, containing unencrypted PHI have been lost or stolen. Further, covered entities and business associates should consider whether it would be cost-effective for them to purchase HIPAA liability insurance given the risk of substantial penalties for HIPAA violations.

Robert A. Polisky, principal of the Law Offices of Robert A. Polisky (www.rphealthlaw.com), is a healthcare attorney based in Los Angeles. Robert represents healthcare providers and companies, including billing companies and their subcontractors, in healthcare transactions, healthcare regulatory (including HIPAA, Medicare enrollment and reimbursement, and fraud and abuse), and general business law. Robert opened his law firm last April after spending over 8 years in-house at Alliance HealthCare Services and, for several years before that, working at healthcare law firms, clerking for a federal judge, and interning at the U.S. Department of Justice. 


How the New HIPAA Regulations Affect Billing Companies and Their Subcontractors as Business Associates - HBMA - Healthcare Billing and Management Association for 1st and 3rd Party Billers - Medical Billing, Practice Management

ATTENTION GROUP HEALTH PLAN SPONSORS: ACTION REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH FINAL HIPAA REGULATIONS

Group health plan sponsors have been focusing to a great extent upon the various
significant requirements imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,
most notably the “play or pay” provisions which become effective in 2014. However,
such sponsors with self-insured plans (including FSAs and HRAs) also need to focus
upon changes to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
privacy and security rules which become effective later this year.
Earlier this year, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published
a final rule modifying HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology
for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) and the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Group health plans, as well as their business
associates, are subject to various changes and generally must comply by September
23, 2013. Accordingly, prompt action is recommended.

The rules are of less concern to fully insured plans, since in those cases plan
sponsors rarely receive protected health information (PHI) other than enrollment and
summary information. Under those circumstances, most HIPAA privacy and security
compliance responsibility rests with the insurer. However, it is of significant relevance
to self-insured health plans maintained by an employer, since the employer then
has access (either directly or through a third party administrator) to the medical
information of its employees and is responsible for complying with HIPAA’s privacy
and security rules.
This Bulletin is not intended to provide an exhaustive summary of the changes
Rather, it is intended to highlight the most significant changes and to suggest action
steps.

Business Associates
The final regulations change the rules for the business associates of group health
plans. Third-party administrators and other consultants or health plan service
providers that have access to PHI in performing services are now directly liable for
the civil and criminal penalties for certain violations of HIPAA. Previously, compliance
had been a contractual obligation pursuant to the written agreement with the covered
entity relative to HIPAA compliance. Therefore, business associates must establish
and maintain policies and procedures to implement required safeguards. Business
associates must enter into written agreements with group health plans and with their
own subcontractors to ensure compliance with HIPAA. Business associates will also
often have a major role in breach notification compliance for group health plans.

The final rule allows for a transition period to renegotiate and revise existing
agreements. Generally, agreements in place as of January 25, 2013 that are not
renewed or modified before September 23, 2013 are considered to be compliant
until they are renewed or modified, or September 22, 2014 if earlier. Agreements
renewed or modified before September 23, 2013 must comply by September 23,
2013. The HHS website contains a revised model business associate agreement.

GINA Compliance
The final regulations implement rules under GINA as it applies to the use and
disclosure of PHI by group health plans and business associates. PHI that is genetic
information may not be used or disclosed for underwriting purposes.

Privacy Policies and Procedures
Self-funded health plans are required to have policies and procedures in place
to protect PHI from unauthorized use and disclosure. Some of those policies and
procedures will need to be revised to reflect the new requirements.

Notice of Privacy Practices
Notices of Privacy Practices will need to be updated to include the following:
• Individuals will be notified upon a breach of PHI.
• The use or disclosure of genetic information for underwriting purposes is
prohibited.
• Written authorization is required for disclosures for marketing purposes and for
the sale of PHI.
The notices will need to be revised and posted on the employer’s website, and copies
of its revised notice should be provided to participants and beneficiaries.

Breach Notification
The final regulations modify the factors that plans and business associates are to
take into account in conducting a “risk assessment” to determine whether a breach
requiring notice to affected individuals, the Department of Health and Human
Services, and in some cases the media, has occurred. A breach requiring notice will
be presumed to have occurred whenever PHI maintained by the plan or business
associate is acquired, accessed, used or disclosed in a manner that violates the
privacy rule. This presumption may be rebutted if the plan or business associate can
demonstrate, pursuant to factors provided under the regulations, that there is a “low
probability” that PHI has been compromised. The previous standard, which required
the violation to pose a “significant risk” of financial, reputational or other harm to the
individual, was eliminated.

Enforcement
The regulations include the civil and criminal penalties that apply to HIPAA violations
by group health plans and their business associates. Monetary penalties vary
according to the number of violations, the cause of such violations, and whether the
group health plan or business associate takes timely action to correct the violation.
Civil penalties can be up to $1.5 million per year for each violation of a standard or
requirement. HHS will continue to conduct random audits and investigate complaints,
and increasingly aggressive enforcement is expected.

Action Items for Group Health Plans
The regulations require immediate action by employers sponsoring self-insured
group health plans and their business associates. Plans need to:
• Update their HIPAA Policies and Procedures, and related administrative forms,
to reflect the final rules.
• For breach notification, replace the “significant risk” standard with the “low
probability” standard in conducting a risk assessment.
• Confirm that genetic information is not used for underwriting purposes.
• Update Notices of Privacy Practices.
• Train personnel who have access to PHI.
• Review business associate agreements and incorporate the final rule’s new requirements. Keep in mind the one year transition rule described above.
Business associates will need to come into compliance with the new rules as well,
including establishing policies and procedures of their own. Business associates will
also need to enter into business associate agreements with their subcontractors. In
that connection, business associates should identify which of their subcontractors
will access, use or disclose PHI in performing their services. Business associates
should also consider whether their existing liability insurance provides coverage for
HIPAA violations and whether new or additional coverage is needed.
Please contact any member of the Health Care Group if you need assistance in
complying with the new HIPAA requirements applicable to self-insured group health
plans.

http://www.murthalaw.com/files/hc__action_required_to_comply_with_final_hipaa_regs_6_2013_copy1.pdf


$585 Million to support Destination Medical Center, a Mayo Clinic project...

Mayo Clinic expansion shows local costs of growth

Published 6:11am Saturday, June 22, 2013
ROCHESTER — In the heart of this southeastern Minnesota city, the Mayo Clinic is building a massive radiation treatment facility that’s expected to draw cancer patients from across the country and perhaps around the world.
The development spotlights a difficult issue faced by clinic officials and the state.
The Legislature in May approved $585 million in future taxpayer support for an economic development project called Destination Medical Center. The plan is to make Rochester a more appealing destination not just for people seeking radiation treatments, but also for the many other faraway patients who travel here for care.
Minnesota policymakers are also dabbling with what experts say is a more fundamental dilemma for the nation’s health care system. The state is now looking for Mayo Clinic to dramatically expand the regional economy, just as doctors and hospitals are being asked to rein in runaway health costs.
“If the costs grow less rapidly, so do the jobs,” Mark Pauly, a professor of health care management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School said of the national dilemma. “From a policy point of view, that hasn’t been reconciled.”
Mayo Clinic officials contend they’re uniquely prepared to simultaneously satisfy both demands.
By providing high-quality, efficient care while expanding operations in Rochester, the clinic plans to survive and prosper even as cost pressures might force other medical centers to shrink, said Dr.
Brad Narr, Mayo Clinic’s medical director for Destination Medical Center.
“I think there are going to be winners and there are going to be people that are going to be left in the dust,” Narr said. “And it’s going to hinge on what we’re actually doing as a medical system that improves people’s lives and provides value.”

Unclear plans
There are still many unanswered questions about Destination Medical Center.
Mayo Clinic officials haven’t said exactly how they will invest the $3.5 billion
they’ve committed to spend over 20 years. It’s also not clear what sort of investment will come from other private parties who are expected to spend up to $2.1 billion.
All told, the project will create about 30,000 jobs, supporters predict, but it’s not clear when that will happen.
State and local taxpayers are being asked to invest in infrastructure projects that could range from land purchases and building demolitions to the construction of a large atrium where Mayo Clinic visitors could escape harsh Minnesota winters.
Next steps include the appointment of board members to a nonprofit economic development corporation for Destination Medical Center and creation by the clinic of a nonprofit economic development agency.
“This (agency) is what will do the legwork — tee the projects up, make it easy for this public funding … to align with the goal of a destination medical center,” Narr said.
He added that it’s “similar to what the city of Anaheim (Calif.) aligned with to make sure that Disneyland came to be what it is.”
Narr isn’t alone in making references to Disney when talking about Destination Medical Center.
“When Disney World was built (in Orlando, Fla.), it was $311 million,” said state Sen. David Senjem, R-Rochester. “If you fast forward and do the inflation calculator, that’s $1.7 billion today.”
“Mayo is saying, ‘We’re going to invest $5.5 billion’ ” combined with other private parties, Senjem said. “By today’s cash values, that’s three Disney Worlds in downtown Rochester.”

Export potential
Such dreams of growth are tantalizing communities across the country. Mayo Clinic’s pitch at the Legislature referred to public funding for economic development projects connected to big-name hospitals and clinics in Baltimore, Cleveland and Houston.
Pittsburgh turned to its health care sector for growth after the demise of the steel industry. Even Detroit has discussed trying to become a medical mecca — a development that caught the attention of researchers at the Center for Studying Health System Change, a health policy group in Washington, D.C.
In 2011, researchers at the center published an article about how localities hope that health care expansions will create high-paying jobs as the population ages. To the extent the projects can draw patients from outside the region — or even the country — health care can serve as an export product that creates local jobs paid for by faraway patients.
But there’s a limit to this export potential, the researchers wrote, because most patients opt for care close to home.
Mayo Clinic is famous for attracting patients from afar. Yet even the clinic draws only 20 percent of its Medicare patients from outside its home base in Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin, researchers wrote, and only about 2 percent of surgery patients come from overseas.
Unless regional health care projects draw new patients from afar, expanded services might simply lead to greater use of those services by local patients. Health insurance premiums would go up as a result, researchers wrote, and costs would be shifted to the federal government through Medicare payments for services.
“If all of the costs of increased health spending were financed by local residents, the attractiveness of strategies to expand the health care sector would be diminished,” researchers wrote.
“Health care spending and costs are a big deal, and we need to address them,” said Alwyn Cassil of the Center for Studying Health System Change. “Yet the state hospital associations are constantly putting out reports on the economic benefits that the health industry provides to local economies.
“There’s a huge disconnect there.”

‘Positioned to grow’
At the Mayo Clinic, the plan for growth with Destination Medical Center is focused on drawing patients from outside Minnesota, said Narr, the project’s medical director.
Mayo wants to be a destination for patients seeking second opinions and dealing with “curveballs” that have stumped hometown medical centers, Narr said. The clinic will also maintain expertise, he said, in treating complex medical conditions for which patients need care that’s well-coordinated among different medical specialties.
Mayo Clinic in 2011 launched a subscription service through which hospitals around the country can consult with doctors in Rochester about complicated patient care issues. Currently, 18 medical centers are part of the Mayo Clinic Care Network, which is meant to allow most patients to stay at local hospitals while directing a few to Rochester for advanced care when needed.
With Destination Medical Center, how many more patients might come to Rochester?
In an April interview, Senjem said he was told the Mayo Clinic needs to double its patient base in Rochester to about 600,000 patients per year. Mayo Clinic officials, however, would not comment on the projection or offer specifics about growth plans.
“As the public reporting of outcomes, quality, safety (and) service occurs, we are positioned to grow,” said Karl Oestreich, a clinic spokesman, in a prepared response to questions.

Lowering risks
Over the years, Mayo Clinic has made big investments in reporting systems to gauge health care quality and efficiency, Narr said, and physicians believe the data will help prove their value to patients. With the proof, Mayo Clinic expects to distinguish itself from other hospital and clinic systems and thereby survive whatever consolidation comes to the industry.
The status quo in health care is “bankrupting the nation,” Narr told state legislators in April. The concern helps explain why Mayo Clinic in January announced an agreement with Minnetonka-based health insurance giant UnitedHealth Group for research on getting more value from health care spending.
Mayo Clinic doctors are in a position to focus on efficiency and quality because they are paid salaries, Narr said, rather than collecting fees for each service they provide. Critics of the fee-for-service payment system say it creates an incentive for non-salary doctors to provide unnecessary and wasteful care.
A case in point is prostate cancer surgery. Up until a few years ago, surgical removal of the prostate to treat cancer, Narr said, was the single most common operation performed by Mayo Clinic surgeons in Rochester.
The surgery brings a significant risk of impotence and incontinence for men who undergo the procedure, but Mayo Clinic was at the forefront of improving the operation, Narr said. The high volume of surgeries generated significant revenue for the clinic in the process.
But over time, the clinic and experts across the country started realizing that screening tests were directing far too many men down a path toward surgery when they may not have needed it. Mayo Clinic abruptly changed course.
“We were doing 1,100 (surgeries) per year,” Narr said. “Over the last three years, we’ve gone from 1,100 to 950 to 600. We are doing the ones, I believe, that are indicated right now, and we do them safely and effectively because we’re tracking the outcomes.”
“In smaller areas, what they do with the prostate is between the patient, the doctor and the malpractice attorney — and they’re not tracking those things,” he said. Quality tracking systems that gauge value are “a huge cost to us — it’s part of our big cost infrastructure. But eventually, that’s going to be the norm, and we want to be ready for it.”

Focusing on value
The focus on value is where the U.S. health system needs to go, said Dr. David Goodman, a health policy expert at Dartmouth Medical School.
Mayo Clinic has a reputation for being very efficient in treating Rochester patients covered by Medicare, Goodman said. The clinic’s quality scores for treating Medicare patients also are good, he said.
If Destination Medical Center means the clinic gets bigger so it can provide high-quality, efficient treatment to more patients, that could be good for Rochester and the nation, Goodman said. But the focus needs to remain on value, he said, not jobs.
“Thirty thousand jobs sounds great to the local area,” Goodman said. “But it represents a tremendous amount of money that could be coming out of other health care systems, if they aren’t providing that care, or from employers and the government.”
“Rochester’s gain might be the nation’s loss,” he said, “if there isn’t substantially greater value in the services they’re providing.”