Thursday, July 4, 2013

NCAQ Transitions Measures to ICD-10, Seeks Comment

The National Committee for Quality Assurance, an accreditation firm, is soliciting public comments on proposed changes to HEDIS performance measures on providers and payers as the nation transitions to the ICD-10 codes.
The ICD-10 codes, effective in October 2014, will be part of the HEDIS 2015 measures, which NCQA will release in July 2014. “To accommodate this change, NCQA created a plan to identify a valid and appropriate set of ICD-10 codes for each HEDIS measure in time for inclusion in the HEDIS 2015 publications,” the organization explains. “This identification has been in progress for three years and is now completed. NCQA seeks public comment on all of the final recommendations for converting ICD-9 to ICD-10 codes in HEDIS measures.”
Because of the large number of codes being reviewed, NCAQ is offering a long comment period with a due date of Dec. 16, 2013. Details on the changes and comment procedures are available here.
NCQA also has released the 2014 edition of technical specifications for HEDIS measures, including a new measure on non-recommended cervical cancer screening in adolescent females. Changes also were made in existing measures covering breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening for adult females, care for older adults, potential drug-disease interaction in the elderly and relative resource use. More information is at ncqa.org/publications.

VA inspected many times; results shared

Written by

Joe Battle

As the director of the G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery VA Medical Center, I wish all of our veterans and their families, service men and women, VA employees and volunteers a happy and safe Fourth of July holiday. We commemorate the Declaration of Independence on this day as our statement of shared values and beliefs which manifests itself in the young men and women who have served our country honorably for 237 years.
I spend my waking moments thinking about how the G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery VA Medical Center can better serve our veterans, and I think of recent events and how some folks are questioning our commitment. The past few months have seen some challenging times at the Jackson VA.
Recent publicity has captured the attention of oversight organizations charged with ensuring that health care facilities are taking care of their patients and providing a safe working environment for its employees. We welcome these organizations as a check to ensure we are providing the best quality of care to our veterans in a safe and clean environment. I’d like to share some results.
On April 1-9, an inspection team from the Occupational Health and Safety Administration visited and reviewed employee training records, inspected the equipment sterilization process, observed the sterilization process and spoke with employees. After almost 10 days, there were two minor findings — a power cord was “daisy-chained” together, which was corrected on the spot, and some employee training was not completed within a calendar year, which OSHA requires, but was completed within a fiscal year, which the VA requires. We retrained the employees while the inspector was still on site.
A few weeks later, on May 3, we had an initial (unannounced) survey by The Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations for our new Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Recovery Center. That inspection yielded one indirect finding — an emergency light in the building had not been tested. We tested it on the spot.
Then, on June 3-4, TJC visited us again. This time to conduct a “mini” full survey of the hospital based on the Office of Special Counsel complaints which were filed. The survey team, consisting of a doctor and nurse, from the VA’s Office of Medical Inspector, reviewed records, spoke to employees and interviewed veterans. The result was only one indirect finding regarding precharted documentation on a quality log.
So, in short, we have had three major (unannounced) inspections over the past three months from oversight organizations in the health care industry and employee safety. The findings did not impact patient care.
While these are good results, we know we’re not finished. Recently, two more OSC complaints have been filed, one related to pharmacy and one related to credentialing and privileging of staff. When the results of these reviews are known we will quickly address any opportunities for improvement.
I have heard that a few wish to see the VA or the Jackson VA shut down. I am disappointed by such thoughts, and such actions would not serve veterans in Mississippi. I believe the VA is specifically equipped to meet the full array of services our veterans need. I want every eligible veteran in the state of Mississippi to use their earned medical benefits and be comfortable using the VA Medical Center. The (Sonny) Montgomery VA Medical Center has an annual operating budget of $350 million which significantly impacts the economic base of our community while employing more than 2,000 people. I want employees and veterans to know that my door is open to ideas, which will improve patient care.
Much has been accomplished during the past year. We were selected to be one of 15 National Pilots in Mental Health exploring partnerships with community mental health organizations to increase access for veterans. We’ve housed 244 homeless veterans and are providing them with critical health care and other support, we’ve co-sponsored two very successful job fairs and on Aug. 26 we’re opening our new women’s clinic. Female veterans are our fastest growing population, and I want the 9,000 plus women veterans in our catchment area to know that the G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery VA Medical Center is here for you.
While all these changes are good for veteran care, we recognize that we always will have work to do. This is a place of honor. More than 44 percent of our employees are veterans. Every eligible veteran in Mississippi deserves nothing less than our full devotion to their care. It is our commitment to this nation.

As we move forward, we will continue to embrace the tenets of ICARE (integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect and excellence) and seek to improve every facet of our health care. So on this July 4, we will be thinking of our veterans and their families. And if you’re traveling down Woodrow Wilson, you will see the G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery VA Medical Center, on the high ground, where all the American flags are flying.


IN-DEPTH: Boosting care, managing costs are health care challenges


Written by
Lisa Bernard-Kuhn

Region tests models ushered in by federal law, some of which are already saving money and raising quality

While debate lingers about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, some key pieces of the federal health care law are already saving hundreds of thousands of dollars and improving patient care locally.
At Mercy Health, a year-old accountable care organization is teaming nurses with patients before they are discharged from the hospital and at home to help manage their health and prescription regimes.
In Over-the-Rhine, patients at Crossroads Heath Center are getting help organizing their medicines, reminders for appointments, and phone calls from nurses to make sure they have a way to get to the doctor.
Within TriHealth, at least 19 physician practices receive monthly payments from large employers, health insurers and Medicare for each patient that receives enhanced coordinated care at one of its new patient-centered medical homes.
And more than 14 physician practices that are part of St. Elizabeth Healthcare receive monthly payments from large employers, health insurers and Medicare for each patient that receives enhanced coordinated care at one of its new patient centered medical homes.
Ushered in by Obamacare, the models mark the region as one of the few in the country where so many new approaches for delivering health care and paying for it are being tested. Each model has a different name and a slightly different approach. But at their core, all try to curb costs and improve patient care by focusing on primary care and managing the health of the sickest among us.
“We’re moving away from fee-for-service payments into a world where providers are recognized for taking better care of their patients and keeping them healthy,” said Craig Brammer, vice president of the Greater Cincinnati Health Council, the Health Collaborative and HealthBridge.
In the short run, several of the programs are yielding promising results by producing fewer costly trips to the emergency rooms for Medicare patients and improving the health of diabetic patients and others with chronic conditions.
But longer term, the jury is still out as to which models will have staying power. “This is the starting point, not the end point,” said Brammer.
Boosting outcomes, payments via 'accountable care'
Locally, Mercy Health is the region’s first and only health system to take the path of becoming an accountable care organization, in which it shares the financial risk of keeping patients healthy.
Roughly 1,200 health-care providers across the country have signed on to the program, aimed at managing the health of some of the most vulnerable and costly patients: elderly and disabled patients on Medicare.
Nationally, savings from the new model are expected to be as much as $1.9 billion by 2015, according to the federal government.
Mercy says it’s seen impressive results since launching its accountable care group, Mercy Health Select, a year ago. Though the data are not final, the improvements are on pace to show a nearly 50 percent reduction in hospital admissions for the more than 25,000 patients served by the program. It’s also expecting a 35 percent reduction in re-admissions for patients and roughly the same decline in emergency room visits overall.
“In the past, we were used to taking care of the patients who came to our door, or patients who showed up in our emergency room, but that is such reactive medicine,” said Dr. Amy Frankowski, medical director of Mercy Health Select.
Mercy’s system includes 35 patient-centered medical homes, which includes a team-based care approach with larger roles for physician assistants, nurse practitioners and other staff who help coordinate more comprehensive care for patients.
Across those practices, Mercy’s 18 nurse care coordinators employed by the accountable care organization focus their time first on the top 5 percent of the most chronically ill patients. These roughly 1,200 patients have conditions that are most severe, complicated and, if left unmanaged, become the most costly to treat.
The nurse care coordinators work one-on-one with each patient, helping manage their diets and tackling any barriers – such as transportation – that might keep them from follow up appointments.
Among the patients is 76-year-old Kathy Calhoun of Reading. Twice a week she gets a call or visit from her nurse care coordinator, who also helps manage the health of Calhoun’s 78-year-old husband, Paul.
The coordinator is “on top of everything,” said Kathy Calhoun. “She’s great about making sure I’m taking my medication correctly and she talks to me about my diet. Until her, I never had a nurse call me.”
In all, the health system says it has seen a “5 to 1” return on its investment, saving more than $500,000 in the first year the model was tested, with just 310 patients. Should savings stay continue to track as they have, they could total in the millions.
Accountable care programs offer hospitals two options for incentives.
Hospitals can take on risk immediately, in which case they get 60 percent of any savings, and potentially face losses.
The other option, which Mercy Health has taken, allows health systems to receive a payment worth half of the money it saved Medicare during the three year trial. Mercy will decide in 2015 if it wants to continue.
“These are important learnings, and if they’re successful we can expand them,” said Frankowski.
Creating 'medical homes' at St. E., TriHealth, Christ
Other large health systems in the region including St. Elizabeth, TriHealth and Christ Hospital have taken the path of transitioning their physician practices to patient-centered medical homes.
Roughly 75 area practices, including 19 offices at TriHealth, are participating in a national pilot known as the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative.
Collectively, the practices are getting up to $60 million more from Medicare through 2016 to improve primary care. The Greater Cincinnati and Dayton region was one of seven nationally last spring to receive grants from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to help doctors afford more comprehensive medical care, including follow ups.
“The theory is, if we can invest more on the front end with primary care, and really engage and coordinate care, then we’ll all save money down stream,” said Dr. Will Groneman, executive vice president of system development at TriHealth.
The practices receive monthly fees that average about $20 per Medicare patient. Those incentives are matched with similar programs from large employer-sponsored plans and insurers including Humana, Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield or United Healthcare.
In 2015 and 2016, the monthly incentives will decrease, but doctors can share in any savings to Medicare from the experiment.
The test is entering is its second year locally, and analysts are reviewing data to determine how successful it’s been, Groneman said. “We’ve heard from large employers that it has been successful in saving costs,” he added.
Using U.S. buying power to bring broader change
Some of this has been tried before. But many of the programs were headed by health insurance companies, and even some employers.
But the fundamental difference this time around is making it pay to give better care.
Because Medicare is the single largest purchaser of U.S. health care services, the way the program chooses to pay out its benefits is followed by the private insurer market.

“To change payment policy, it literally took an act of Congress,” Brammer said. “With federal health reform, it provides opportunities to test new payment models and to scale that up in a way that will work.” 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130704/NEWS/307040047/


EHR Meaningful Use Dropout Rate Soars in 2012


AAFP Works to Identify, Correct Barriers
July 03, 2013 12:45 pm Sheri Porter – As U.S. physicians continue to embrace electronic health records (EHRs), data on CMS' EHR incentive program holds both positive and troubling news regarding family physicians' participation and success in achieving meaningful use of their EHRs. 

According to CMS' recently published EHR meaningful use attestation data(healthdata.gov), 23,636 family physicians became first-time meaningful users in 2012. The number represents a 180 percent increase compared to 2011 EHR statistics.
In an interview with AAFP News Now, Jason Mitchell, M.D., director of the AAFP's Center for Health IT, said the latest report confirms family medicine "still has the greatest participation both by percentage and by the numbers."
However, the report also revealed a drop in the retention rate of attesting physicians. In fact, of the 11,578 family physicians who attested to meaningful use in 2011, only 9,188 did so in 2012, a 21 percent drop in participation.
Mitchell and Steven Waldren, M.D., the center's senior strategist for health care IT, crunched the raw numbers -- buried deep in the April attestation data -- and determined that the overall meaningful use dropout rate among all physician specialties was 20 percent. 

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Recent EHR meaningful use attestation data published by CMS show family physicians participate in the program at higher rates than physicians in other specialties.
  • Among all specialties, about 20 percent of first-time meaningful use attesters in 2011 did not attest to meaningful use in 2012.
  • Reasons for the tumble in numbers could include a change in the reporting period from 30 days to one year and misunderstanding about -- or lack of attention to -- the two-month attestation period in early 2013.
Why the Tumbling Numbers?
The new data raise a key question: Why were a good number of physicians unable to maintain meaningful user status, especially since no changes were made in the meaningful use stage one requirements from 2011 to 2012?
Although there's no way to know for sure, Mitchell and Waldren cited some possible reasons for the decline.
Looming large on their list is the length of the reporting period. In 2011, physicians only had to report on measures for 90 consecutive days and could start, stop and shift dates to make that happen. However, during year two, the reporting period stretched to a full year. The extra reporting burden may have discouraged physicians. Others simply may have lost track of their progress during the year.
"For some physicians, the issue likely was a lack of ongoing monitoring of their meaningful use numbers throughout that entire year," said Mitchell.
And unfortunately, some physicians simply missed the two-month attestation window for 2012 reporting that ran from Jan. 1 to Feb. 28, 2013. "A physician could have been a meaningful user the whole year and then missed the attestation deadline," said Mitchell.
"Don't be that guy in the next round," said Waldren. "It's very important to check the timeline for 2013(www.cms.gov) and understand the deadlines for meaningful use."
In addition, 2012 saw a decrease in function of the federally funded regional extension center (REC) programs. According to Mitchell, the state-based organizations were designed to sign physicians on with a REC, assist physicians with EHR implementation, and then help them become meaningful users and successfully attest to MU.
The first year, the RECs were offered incentives to get physicians on board, but there was no built-in incentive for RECs to maintain physicians through the second year, and many of the RECs already were running out of funding to sustain their work, said Mitchell.

TELL THE AAFP YOUR MEANINGFUL USE STORIES
The AAFP wants to hear from family physicians who are among the 21 percent of FPs who failed to qualify for a meaningful use bonus in 2012 even though they successfully attested in 2011.
If that sounds like you, send a quick e-mail to Jason Mitchell, M.D., or Steven Waldren, M.D., with details of your particular situation. Identifying meaningful use barriers will help the AAFP in its work with CMS and other stakeholders to resolve those issues in the future. 
AAFP Working to Resolve Issues
To help ensure family physicians' future success with the meaningful use program, the AAFP already is working with CMS and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT to investigate, find answers and fix problems.
"Is there one particular measure that is tripping up physicians? If so, let's look at changing that," said Waldren. "Is the 12-month reporting period an obstacle? Do physicians need software that provides a 'dashboard' to enable them to track their progress?
"Let's work on identifying the problems and see what corrections can be made, because we want to be sure that 20 percent of our 2012 meaningful users don't drop off in 2013," said Waldren.
Mitchell and Waldren said physicians could ease the meaningful use burden by taking a few steps. For example, they encouraged members to
  • plan ahead by checking requirements and deadlines and then stay on top of those obligations,
  • crank out electronic meaningful use reports on a continuous basis to show progress toward meeting standards, and
  • ensure that an EHR's internal tracking mechanism for certain measures, such as the drug formulary and interaction features, are turned on for the entire reporting period.
"Such features could inadvertently be turned off by the vendor during a routine system update," said Waldren.
Mitchell expressed concern about physicians' desire to stay in the game when meaningful use two rules are applied in 2014. "The rules do change significantly, and technology has to be more sophisticated," said Mitchell.

And although the reporting period window collapses back down to three months for the first year of meaningful use two, the reporting must be done quarterly, so there can be no "shifting and shuffling" of dates to attain a consecutive 90-day reporting period. In 2015, meaningful use stage two will once again shift users to that full year of reporting, said Mitchell. 



Wednesday, July 3, 2013

The Epidemic of Disillusioned Doctors


We all know medicine has become a frustrating profession. But surveys show that a younger generation of doctors are more resilient to burnout



Last week I was ready to quit medicine. I was seeing a new patient with diabetes, heart disease, anemia, hypertension, osteopenia, hypothyroidism, reflux, depression and pain in every part of her body. From a bag she produced 18 pill bottles — from about as many doctors — and piled them onto my desk. She pulled out a form from her job that needed to be filled out, plus a prior-approval form that her insurance company required, as well as a stack of photocopied records from the other doctors. She didn’t speak English, so we waded through her complicated medical history via a telephone interpreter. I don’t like to write while I am talking with a patient, but I couldn’t afford to fall behind in my documentation, so I typed madly into the 50 required fields of our electronic medical record while the patient recounted her complex medical history.
In the middle of this, the computer seized up, then turned a shade of gray that in an ICU would elicit the code team. I didn’t want to lose the interpreter on the phone, so I fiddled with the control-alt-delete buttons while I continued the interview, moving on to the refresh buttons, the escape buttons, finally squatting awkwardly under the desk to yank the on-off switch of the computer.
Forty-five minutes into our 15-minute visit, with an interpreter telephone in one ear translating back and forth into Bengali, my office phone in the other ear, on hold to tech support, my desk swimming with insurance forms, pill bottles, MRI reports, and mammogram referrals, the computer flashing ominous error messages, plus six more patients waiting outside, eight phone messages from yesterday still to return, I thought: “That’s it, I quit!”
It’s a thought that crosses the minds of the majority of doctors, it seems. Patients have more complex medical conditions, practices are much busier, insurance companies require more paperwork, administrative mandates multiply like rabbits, electronic medical records are more byzantine, support systems are fewer — and the 15-minute visit hasn’t gotten any longer.
A survey of more than 13,000 doctors by the Physicians Foundation found that more than two-thirds of them feel negatively about their profession. Too much paperwork and regulations, plus the burden of defensive medicine, are the strongest contributors to this bleak outlook. These erode the doctor-patient relationship and the clinical autonomy that doctors have always cherished. What once seemed a higher calling increasingly feels like an assembly-line job.
What does this mean for patients? For those of you who’ve had trouble getting an appointment with your doctor, consider this: on average, American doctors spend more than 22% of their time on nonclinical paperwork. That’s the equivalent of 165,000 doctors idling with busy work instead of seeing patients.
Evidence is starting to accumulate that disillusioned and burned-out doctors make more errors and are more prone to substance abuse and depression. One American doctor takes his or her own life nearly every day — a rate that is much higher than in other professions.
It’s much harder for disillusioned doctors to muster empathy for their patients. This too is a danger. Patients of doctors who score lower on the empathy scale have worse clinical outcomes.
Many of the things that ail the medical profession — sicker patients, convoluted insurance requirements — are not so easy to change. But some things are. Electronic medical records, if done smartly, could ease the paperwork burden. Team-based approaches involving nurses, social workers and care managers could distribute the workload in a way that is less taxing on the doctor and more beneficial for the patient.
The good news is that doctors are not a homogeneous bunch. The Physicians Foundation study found that female doctors were more optimistic about medicine than their male counterparts. Doctors under 40 were more satisfied than older doctors, suggesting that younger people in the profession are more used to these demands. Salaried doctors were happier than doctors in private practice. Primary-care doctors had higher morale than specialists.
The rate of women in medical schools has been increasing steadily such that women are about 50% of medical students. Primary-care fields — internal medicine, ob-gyn, pediatrics, family medicine — are already dominated by women. And the trend of medicine is toward the salaried model, with new “accountable-care organizations” placing primary care front and center.
Putting this together, the newer generation of female, salaried, primary-care doctors have the most optimistic outlook on medicine. This bodes well for patients, whose doctors will increasingly fall into this category. Perhaps the current epidemic of physician disillusionment will abate as the new waves of doctors remake the face of medicine. This of course does not dismiss the shortcomings of medicine that frustrate doctors on a daily basis, but it does suggest that all is not dismal. To me, the most salient finding of the Physicians Foundation study was that when asked what was the most satisfying aspect of medical practice, the No. 1 answer was relationships with patients. This is what keeps us going even on the most trying of days.
When I finally ended the visit with my patient, we were both worn out. We’d made some headway, but there were more issues unresolved than resolved. However, the fact that we’d plowed through the morass together, however agonizingly, seemed to provide common ground. We smiled wearily at each other, but our parting handshake was solid. We were now in this together.



Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/07/02/the-epidemic-of-disillusioned-doctors/#ixzz2Y0gaWHrJ

Lack of Medicare CPT Codes for Hospitalist Practice Creates Dilemma

The Society of Hospital Medicine is pushing Medicare to reclassify skilled-nursing facility care as inpatient care for hospitalists
by By Richard Quinn

Hospitalist leaders are taking a proactive approach to the latest wrinkle of the specialty’s rock-and-a-hard-place dilemma when it comes to how clinicians code for their services. The oft-lamented issue is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) dearth of CPT codes designated for day-to-day hospitalist services.
But the latest twist to the story is what happens in skilled-nursing facilities (SNFs). Hospitalists increasingly are taking lead roles in SNFs, yet they must use the same care codes as nursing-home providers despite the higher acuity and longer length of stay found in SNFs compared to nursing homes. Additionally, Medicare recognizes SNFs and nursing homes as primary care for reimbursement via accountable-care organizations (ACOs).
Kerry Weiner, MD, a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, says SHM and others, including the American Medical Directors Association, are pushing CMS to reclassify SNF care as inpatient service, similar to acute rehabilitation facilities, inpatient psychiatric care, and long-term acute-care facilities. Dr. Weiner suggests rank-and-file practitioners do the same.
“We think attributing providers to be primary care versus specialty care versus acute care only on the basis of E&M codes will not really capture the nuances of primary-care practice in the country right now,” says Dr. Weiner, chief medical officer at North Hollywood, Calif.-based IPC: The Hospitalist Company. “This is an example of how just using E&M codes does not really capture the style of practice and the type of patient you’re seeing.”
The arguments for reclassification include:
  • Hospitalists and other physicians practicing in SNFs need to spend most of their time there to provide optimal care, but it is difficult to financially justify maintaining that presence without an adequate patient census.
  • Generating that census while practicing in one ACO is difficult because most facilities service multiple ACOs, and PCP exclusivity rules tied to many ACO contracts are a hurdle for physicians working with one just ACO (working with multiple ACOs requires multiple tax identification numbers and can be “operationally and politically difficult,” Dr. Wiener says).
  • All told, ACO setup creates a fiscal hurdle for providers working in SNFs and does not recognize the clinical burden that separates the types of care provided in SNFs and nursing homes. Were care in SNFs reclassified as inpatient care, the exclusivity rule would not apply, and therefore, hospitalists in those facilities could more easily attain a patient census that justifies their continued presence. Dr. Weiner says one solution is to create a set of CPT codes just for SNFs that could be used by specialist physicians, including hospitalists.
“We are proposing a ‘work around’ by using the site of service as a determinator,” he adds.

Issues to Address

Dr. Weiner, SHM officials, and others have met with CMS to discuss the potential reclassification. Dr. Weiner says that as the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) morphs into the Value-Based Payment Modifier (VBPM) program, the issue of ACO exclusivity could become even more prevalent as compensation is tied to performance.
“One of the components of physician value-based purchasing is the cost of care,” Dr. Weiner says. “If you compare a hospitalist’s cost to the pool of primary care, which includes hospitals, SNFs, etc., you’re obviously going to be higher because you have a much sicker population; A lot more things are going on, so there’s a lot higher utilization. So this concept of assigning doctors to a style of practice just based on E&M codes is just inadequate.”
Patrick Conway, MD, MSc, FAAP, SFHM, chief medical officer of CMS and director of CMS’ Center of Clinical Standards and Quality, says the agency is sympathetic to the issue. Via PQRS and VBPM, CMS is working to put in place “a robust set of measures that hospitalists can choose to report on,” he says.
“CMS has sought public comment on allowing hospitalists to align with their hospital’s quality measures for CMS quality programs,” he says. “But without this alignment option or a specialty code, we need to at least have sufficient measures to reflect hospitalists’ actual practice and what’s important to hospital medicine.”
Dr. Conway, a former hospitalist and chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, says he welcomes feedback from SHM and its members on suggested changes to CMS policy.
“I would certainly encourage hospital medicine to have discussions with the CMS payment and coding team that makes determinations about specialty status,” he says.
If you compare a hospitalist’s cost to the pool of primary care, which includes hospitals, SNFs, etc., you're obviously going to be higher because hospitalists have a much sicker population.

The Future?

Ironically, the potential panacea of HM-specific codes has not been fully embraced because of fears of unintended consequences. For example, in the case of hospitalists practicing in SNFs, the PCP designation is problematic in terms of lower reimbursement rates. Some hospitalists, however, will see a bump in total revenue the next two years because they will be designated PCPs and paid more via the Medicaid-to-Medicare parity regulation included in the Affordable Care Act.
“Hospital medicine will want to think about that as it goes through the process,” Dr. Conway says. “Internally with CMS, if you’re a specialty, we will specifically consider if you’re primary care or not. Whereas, if you’re in the internal-medicine bucket, by definition from the traditional CMS specialty coding perspective, you are primary care. So if you make a point to carve out your own category, then it’ll be a decision every time if you’re primary care or are you a specialty.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

HHS Proposes Clarifications For Market Reform Regulations And New Exchange-Related Obligations But Leaves Key Questions Unanswered


Last Updated: July 3 2013
Article by Anne W. Hance





The proposed rule imposes new requirements on health insurance issuers offering Qualified Health Plans through Health Insurance Exchanges and clarifies other obligations for various market reforms and the Premium Stabilization Programs, despite the fact that applications to offer coverage through Exchanges already have been submitted and 2014 benefit packages and rates already have been developed.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a proposed rule on June 14, 2013, (Proposed Rule) that offers new provisions and clarifications covering a wide range of topics relating to Health Insurance Exchanges, the Premium Stabilization Programs and other health insurance market reforms. The Proposed Rule also imposes new requirements and obligations for state-based Health Insurance Exchanges (State Exchanges) and health insurance issuers offering Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) through State Exchanges and federally-facilitated Health Insurance Exchanges (FFEs, and collectively with State Exchanges, Exchanges), despite the fact that health plans' applications to participate in Exchanges already have been submitted and enrollment begins in mere months.
HHS leaves unanswered several critical questions, such as whether health insurance issuers offering QHPs (QHP Issuers) through FFEs will have an opportunity (and the time) to appeal HHS's decision not to certify a QHP for the 2014 (or subsequent) benefit year.
Comments on the Proposed Rule, which was published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2013, are due to HHS on July 19, 2013.

HHS Introduces "Program Integrity" Provisions for Issuers and States

HHS imposes new operational and contracting requirements and enforcement mechanisms for QHP Issuers participating in FFEs. The Proposed Rule also proposes new oversight and program integrity requirements for states operating their own risk adjustment and reinsurance programs as well as for State Exchanges. These developments are not surprising, given HHS's approach to administering the Medicare Advantage and Part D Programs, although some of the requirements seem to blur the distinction between HHS's administration of federal entitlement programs versus federally-administered marketplaces.

Issuers Face New Compliance Obligations, Including Responsibility for Contractors

Borrowing from the Medicare Advantage and Part D Programs, HHS proposes new oversight and contractual requirements for QHP Issuers with regard to their contractors and subcontractors–"Delegated Entities" and "Downstream Entities" in Exchange parlance. These definitions include providers of both administrative and health care services, and therefore are inclusive of hospitals, accountable care organizations and other health care providers with which QHP Issuers contract.QHP Issuers are responsible for their own compliance with applicable federal and state standards as well as for the compliance of their Delegated and Downstream Entities, regardless of the relationship. Additionally, QHP Issuers must incorporate into their contracts with Delegated and Downstream Entities certain provisions if the QHP Issuers delegate their activities or obligations. These provisions include specification of the delegated activity and reporting responsibility, revocation of the delegated activity/reporting standard or other remedy if the Delegated/Downstream Entity's performance is unsatisfactory and an obligation of the Delegated/Downstream Entity to retain books and records (and make them available to federal regulators) for 10 years. New contracts entered into on or after October 1, 2013 must include these provisions, but QHP Issuers have until January 1, 2015 to amend existing agreements.
The QHP Issuers subject to these requirements are unclear. The placement of the regulation, under Part 156, Subpart D relating to Federally-Facilitated Exchange Qualified Health Plan Issuer Standards, suggests the obligations are imposed only on QHP Issuers participating in FFEs. The regulatory text and the preamble discussion, however, do not contain any such limitation and refer to "QHP issuers" more generally, suggesting all QHP Issuers are subject to the provisions, even if the QHP Issuers offer products through State Exchanges. Issuers, providers and other contractors operating in states with State Exchanges may request clarification on this point.
Given Issuers' extensive operations and the variety of Delegated and Downstream Entities with which Issuers may contract—including marketing organizations, agents, brokers, health care providers and administrative service providers—this proposal creates a significant burden on QHP Issuers, which now are directly accountable for the compliance (or non-compliance) of their contractors. Many may wonder as to the need or appropriateness for HHS to dictate the terms of QHP Issuers' contracts with their vendors when HHS's role is to facilitate a health insurance marketplace, and not to arrange for the provision of health care benefits as is HHS's responsibility under the Medicare Program. Moreover, entities familiar with these obligations pursuant to Medicare Advantage and Part D operations also can attest to the significant practical challenges this responsibility imposes, including amending all provider and administrative contracts and negotiations when the other party does not know that these federal requirements must "flow downstream" to contractors. A QHP Issuer also may determine that more extensive contractual requirements—such as a Delegated Entity's maintenance of a compliance program—are necessary in order for the QHP Issuer to be comfortable with the entity's performance of a delegated activity and compliance with laws. Some contractors may take a partnership approach to their QHP Issuer relationships and accept these responsibilities, but others may object to assuming more expansive obligations than those required by HHS.
HHS also proposes new compliance obligations (and implications for non-compliance) for QHP Issuers relating to cost-sharing subsidies. QHP Issuers are responsible for ensuring that members are assigned to the appropriate standard plan or silver plan variation and that the appropriate cost-sharing reductions are applied. HHS believes that members should be held harmless if the QHP Issuer "misapplies" the cost-sharing reductions. Accordingly, QHP Issuers are obligated to refund any excess cost-sharing paid by or on behalf of the member to the person or entity that paid the excess cost-sharing ("whether the enrollee or the provider") no more than 30 calendar days after discovery of any improper allocation of cost-sharing. Further, QHP Issuers are not eligible to be reimbursed for any excess cost-sharing reductions improperly furnished to the member, such as through the end-of-year reconciliation. Beginning with the 2015 benefit year, QHP Issuers would be required to provide HHS (and the State Exchange, as applicable) a report detailing occurrences of the improper application of cost-sharing violations, failure to refund any excess cost-sharing amounts paid, and QHP Issuer reimbursement for excess cost-sharing provided. HHS requests comment on this report proposal, including frequency of the report and a minimum error rate or threshold that would trigger the reporting obligation.
The Proposed Rule imposes a similar refund obligation, 30-day time period and reporting requirement on QHP Issuers relating to their failure to reduce the portion of the premium charged to or for a member for the applicable month(s) by the amount of the advance premium tax credit available to the individual. Additionally, QHP Issuers must submit to HHS summary statistics with respect to administration of cost-sharing reductions and premium tax credits.
QHP Issuers participating in an FFE that undergo a change of ownership, as recognized by the state in which the FFE is operating, will notify HHS at least 30 days prior to the change in ownership. The form and format of the notice will be determined, and will include the legal name and Taxpayer Identification Number of the new owner and the effective date of the change in ownership. HHS also requires that the new owner agree to "adhere to all applicable statutes and regulations," presumably relating to the offering of QHPs through the FFE. HHS elected not to require a novation agreement, similar to that required for Medicare Advantage Organization/Part D Plan Sponsor changes in ownership, based on the conclusion that such a requirement would duplicate existing state requirements, but requests comments on this issue.

10-Year Record Retention and Government Inspection Obligations

HHS imposes on Issuers a series of record retention and government-inspection provisions for the reinsurance (as described below) and risk adjustment programs. Records must be "sufficient" to enable the regulators (whether federal or state, depending on who administers the program) to evaluate compliance with applicable risk adjustment standards and retained for 10 years. HHS specifically references data validation obligations as well as records relating to premium rating and small group status as subject to the record retention and audit provisions. Given the potential for allegations of federal False Claims Act (FCA) violations that could arise in connection with either program and HHS's statements in the Proposed Rule relating to the FCA, these proposals are not surprising.
These record retention and government inspection provisions are in addition to those proposed by HHS for QHP Issuers relating to their participation in FFEs. QHP Issuers must maintain records that are sufficient to enable periodic auditing by HHS, including financial records relating to participation in Exchanges (including auditing for financial solvency) and compliance reviews. Risk corridor payment records, although not referenced, seem as though they could be included in the scope of this record retention requirement. Interestingly, HHS imposes these record retention requirements on QHP Issuers participating in FFEs, and includes a separate record retention provision for QHP Issuers operating in State Exchanges for documents relating to application of cost-sharing subsidies and premium tax credits. It is not clear, however, that HHS imposes on QHP Issuers participating in State Exchanges, or requires State Exchanges to impose on QHP Issuers participating in State Exchanges, the more expansive record retention and government audit obligations.

HHS Oversight and Enforcement Action in FFEs

The Proposed Rule codifies HHS's prior statements, including in the FFE Application, regarding its intent to conductcompliance reviews of QHP Issuers participating in FFEs. Using a risk-based approach for selecting QHP Issuers to audit that includes analyses of data submitted by QHP Issuers, HHS will audit QHP Issuer records, systems and facilities relating to its participation in the FFE, including to
  • Evaluate compliance with Exchange standards and performance thereunder
  • Verify performance of the duties to which the QHP Issuer attested in its certification process
  • Assess the likelihood of fraud and abuse
HHS expects to focus its review on FFE standards for QHP Issuers "because oversight of market-wide standards will generally be performed by States as part of their regulatory oversight." HHS does not indicate whether it may take a more expansive approach in conducting audits in states where the state has elected not to enforce a standard or lacks the regulatory or enforcement authority to do so. Although HHS expects the audits will be less rigorous than those applied to Medicare Advantage Organizations, audit findings will be incorporated into HHS's process for evaluating whether permitting a QHP Issuer's products to be available in an FFE is in the interest of the qualified individuals and qualified employers purchasing coverage through the FFE. HHS may conduct audits up to 10 years from the last day of the applicable benefit year.
The Proposed Rule for the first time provides specific detail regarding HHS's enforcement authority in administering FFEs. Consistent with the authority granted under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), HHS sets out the bases upon which it would undertake the two "formal" enforcement actions against QHP Issuers: decertification and civil money penalties (CMPs). HHS is silent regarding potential "informal" enforcement actions it may take against QHP Issuers, such as warning letters and corrective action plan requests imposed on Medicare Advantage Organizations and Part D Plan Sponsors.
  • Civil Money Penalties: Similar to its audit approach, HHS intends to focus its oversight on FFE standards and avoid unnecessary duplication of state regulatory oversight of market-wide standards. CMPs of up to $100 per day for each individual adversely affected may be imposed for "misconduct" or "substantial non-compliance" with Exchange standards. In applying CMPs, HHS will take into consideration various factors, including "that 2014 will be a transitional year for issuers offering QHPs," previous and ongoing record of compliance, the level of the violation and its impact on affected individuals, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. QHP Issuers will receive a notice of HHS's intent to assess CMPs and will have the right to a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) to address whether there is a basis for CMPs and whether the assessed amount is reasonable.
  • Decertification: Decertification, which HHS for the first time indicates may occur at the issuer or QHP level, may occur for one of several reasons, including substantial failure to comply with specific federal standards applicable to participation in an FFE. HHS also adopts from the Medicare Advantage and Part D Programs two very general bases for decertification: substantial failure to comply with federal laws and regulations applicable to QHP Issuers in the FFE, and operating in a manner "that hinders the efficient and effective administration of an FFE." Under the standard decertification process, HHS will provide written notice of its intent to decertify a QHP/QHP Issuer to the Issuer, to members and to the department of insurance of the applicable state, indicating the effective date of certification (no earlier than 30 days from the notice date). If HHS determines that the basis for decertification involves members' ability to access necessary medical items or services or fraud, HHS may expedite decertification and impose an immediate effective date. A right of appeal, including a hearing before an ALJ to evaluate whether a basis for decertification exists, will be available to QHP Issuers under both processes, although the hearing would occur after decertification (and the start of a special enrollment period for members) under the expedited process.
CMPs also may be imposed on Issuers for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the risk adjustment and reinsurance programs. For example, an Issuer that does not provide HHS with access to enrollee-level claims data or does not set up a "dedicated distributed data environment" for the risk adjustment and reinsurance programs may be subject to CMPs.

Financial Integrity and Oversight Requirements for States and State Exchanges

The Proposed Rule imposes a series of operational and reporting requirements on states and State Exchanges. A state operating a reinsurance or risk adjustment program, for example, must submit to HHS—and make publicly available—summaries of the respective operations, and the programs also must be audited annually for financial and programmatic compliance by an independent qualifying auditing entity. States' reinsurance entities must account for monies received from HHS for reinsurance payments and administrative expenses, including claims for payment, payments made and incurred administrative expenses. Records relating to the reinsurance and risk adjustment programs must be maintained for 10 years and be made available to federal authorities. States must extend the obligation to their contractors as well.
State Exchanges similarly are subject to record retention and federal audit requirements and annual audit obligations. They must submit various reports to HHS, including a financial statement and to-be-specified reports addressing eligibility, enrollment, performance monitoring and consumer satisfaction. HHS also imposes auditing and reporting obligations specific to compliance with advance premium tax credit and cost-sharing reduction standards.
The Proposed Rule creates new requirements relating to privacy and security incidents and breaches for State Exchanges and "non-Exchange entities." For example, a one-hour reporting obligation (from discovery) for State Exchanges and non-Exchange entities associated with FFEs is imposed for "all privacy and security incidents and breaches" (as such terms are defined in the Proposed Rule and which differ from the HIPAA Security Rule definitions). Non-Exchange entities associated with a State Exchange also must report all incidents and breaches to the applicable State Exchange, although HHS does not specify the terms of such reporting obligation.

Enhancing the Reinsurance Program's Contributing Entity Provisions

The Proposed Rule offers several clarifying statements regarding responsibility for reinsurance contributions, in addition to imposing record retention requirements on contributing entities and Issuers offering reinsurance-eligible health insurance coverage.

Revised Definition of Contributing Entity

The definition of a "contributing entity" for the temporary reinsurance program is amended to include as a self-insured group health plan a group health plan that offers a benefit package that is partially self-funded and partially fully-insured when the insured coverage does not constitute major medical coverage (regardless of whether the self-insured coverage is major medical). For example, a group health plan that offers a single benefit package for which the medical benefits are self-insured and the prescription drug coverage is fully-insured falls within the revised definition of a self-insured group health plan because the insured coverage is not major medical coverage. Accordingly, the group health plan is responsible for reinsurance contributions, consistent with existing reinsurance contribution counting requirements. The Proposed Rule further clarifies that if the insurance coverage in such a circumstance is major medical coverage, the Issuer is responsible for the contributions.

Multiple Coverage Scenarios

The Proposed Rule also allocates financial responsibility for reinsurance contributions in other scenarios involving various coverage options, including creating an exception to the general premise that an Issuer is not responsible for contributions when not offering major medical coverage.
  • The Proposed Rule addresses a potential circumstance in which a group health plan offers a single benefit package that involves multiple health insurance coverages offered by more than one Issuer, none of which alone constitutes major medical coverage but the totality of which meets this threshold. Under the general principle that an Issuer is not responsible for reinsurance contributions when it does not offer major medical coverage to a group health plan, there potentially is no "contributing entity" financially responsible for the contributions in this situation. Accordingly, HHS creates an exception, providing that if a group health plan's benefit package includes multiple health insurance coverages, none of which constitutes major medical coverage, and if the group health plan does not provide self-insured coverage for such covered lives (other than for excepted benefits), then the Issuer offering the largest percentage of coverage among the policies makes reinsurance contributions for such covered individuals. The Proposed Rule sets out the bases upon which the "largest percentage of coverage" is determined, including using the average premium per covered life as a metric.
  • Separately, the Proposed Rule clarifies financial responsibility for contributions when the group health plan offers more than one benefits option, at least one of which is fully-insured coverage and at least one of which is not fully-insured coverage (either because the group health plan or a non-Issuer assumes the risk). Such a circumstance might arise if a group health plan provides a self-insured benefit package to the majority of its employees, but those employees working at a satellite facility in a separate geographic area are offered separate, fully-insured health insurance coverage (e.g., to ensure there is a sufficient provider network for the coverage). In this instance, the Issuer is responsible for the reinsurance contributions for covered lives under the fully-insured option, while the group health plan is responsible for the reinsurance contribution associated with the coverage options that are not fully-insured.

Practical Challenges for Issuer Compliance

Issuers face several challenges for complying with federal regulations (such as coordinating the provision of summary of benefits notices) when offering fully-insured coverage to a group health plan that also makes available other coverage options (whether fully-insured, self-insured or otherwise). These challenges, including obtaining complete and accurate information regarding the scope of coverages available under the group health plan, take on a greater significance under the temporary reinsurance program, however, because of the potential FCA risk that could arise if the Issuer knowingly or recklessly avoids a payment obligation to the federal government–a "reverse false claim."
Acknowledging that Issuers may not have all of the information necessary to evaluate their reinsurance contribution obligation in connection with a particular group health plan, HHS requests comments on whether it should direct Issuers to seek a representation from the group health plan sponsor regarding the relative percentage of coverage offered by the Issuer. Furthermore, all contributing entities must maintain documents and records relating to enrollment count for 10 years so that the federal government may verify reinsurance contribution amounts. (A similar obligation is imposed on Issuers offering reinsurance-eligible plans that request reinsurance payments under the program.) Issuers may consider whether their contracts with group health plan sponsors (and the sales agents associated with the account) should impose more expansive obligations in order for the Issuers to receive the information required to determine their reinsurance contribution payment obligations (and have continued access to such information for the 10-year period).

Clarifications and Technical Modifications for Market Reform Regulations

HHS in February 2013 finalized the health insurance market reform regulations (Market Reforms Final Rule) effective for plan and policy years beginning on and after January 1, 2014. With the Proposed Rule, HHS modifies several of the Market Reforms Final Rule requirements.
  • Consistency Among the PHSA, ERISA, and the Code Definitions of Small and Large Employers: Finally addressing an issue that has proved challenging since the ACA's enactment, HHS requests comments on what interpretations of the statute, if any, are necessary to ensure "smooth implementation" and address the inconsistency between the ACA-revised definitions of "small employer" and "large employer" in the Public Health Service Act and the corresponding definitions in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and Internal Revenue Code, which were not so amended.
  • Association Coverage: 45 C.F.R. § 144.102(c), as amended by the Market Reforms Final Rule, states that health insurance coverage offered through an association to a member that is an employer sponsoring a group health plan with fewer than two participants who are current employees on the first day of the plan year is considered individual health insurance coverage, regardless of state law. This description does not recognize that the ACA changed the definition of "small employer" to include an employer with an average of at least one employee. The Proposed Rule therefore modifies the description of association coverage in 45 C.F.R. § 144.102(c) in order to be consistent with the definition of "small employer" and makes corresponding changes to various definitions.
  • Geographic Rating: Consistent with its April 26, 2013 guidance, HHS amends 45 C.F.R. § 147.102 to provide that geographic rating in the individual market is based on the primary policyholder's address (regardless of the location of other individuals covered under the policy), and, in the small group market, the geographic rating is based on the group policyholder's "principal business address."
  • Calendar Year Coverage: HHS amends 45 C.F.R. § 147.104 to provide that, effective January 1, 2015, (i) all non-grandfathered coverage in the individual market, and (ii) all non-grandfathered coverage in a market for which the individual and small group risk pools have been merged must be offered on a calendar year basis. This revision, which HHS states was the intent of the Market Reform Final Rule, aligns the coverage year for the non-Exchange and Exchange markets and is consistent with the single risk pool provisions. Therefore 2014 becomes a "stub year" for policies issued or renewed in these markets after January 1, 2014, so that all policies issue/renew effective January 1, 2015. Small group markets for which the risk pool has not been merged are unaffected by this change.
  • Rating Updates: HHS limits to once annually Issuers' opportunity to modify their market-wide adjusted index rate and plan-specific pricing for individual markets and for markets in which the individual and small group risk pools are merged. Issuers participating in the small group (only) market may make index rate and plan-specific pricing changes on an annual basis until HHS issues a notification that the Federally Facilitated Small Business Health Options Program (FF-SHOP) can process quarterly rate updates, after which adjustments may be made on a quarterly basis. The preamble to the Proposed Rule and the proposed regulatory language contain some phrasing that may cause confusion as to which Issuers would be subject to the initial annual update restriction–all Issuers offering small group coverage (regardless of whether the coverage is offered through a SHOP, and regardless of whether the SHOP is an FF-SHOP), or only QHP Issuers offering products through an FF-SHOP. This is an area on which Issuers may request further clarification from HHS.
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.



Johnson City Physicians to Pay $4.25 Million to Resolve Civil False Claims Allegations Regarding Unapproved Foreign Drugs


U.S. Attorney’s OfficeJuly 02, 2013
  • Eastern District of Tennessee(865) 545-4167
GREENEVILLE, TN—William R. Kincaid, M.D.; Millard R. Lamb, M.D.; and Charles O. Famoyin, M.D., former partners in East Tennessee Hematology-Oncology Associates, P.C., d/b/a McLeod Cancer and Blood Center (McLeod Cancer), in Johnson City, Tennessee, have agreed to pay, via separate settlement agreements, $4.25 million, plus interest, to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by knowingly submitting or causing the submission to the Medicare and TennCare/Medicaid programs of false claims for misbranded, unapproved chemotherapy drugs that were administered through the McLeod Cancer clinic.
Dr. Kincaid, the managing partner of McLeod Cancer, pleaded guilty in December 2012 to receiving misbranded drugs with intent to defraud or mislead in violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act and was sentenced on June 10, 2013, to serve 24 months in federal prison. Dr. Kincaid will also be excluded from federal health care programs for a period of 10 years. Drs. Lamb and Famoyin were minority owners and were not criminally charged. Dr. Kincaid’s portion of the civil settlement is $2.55 million; Drs. Lamb and Famoyin are each responsible for payments of $850,000.
During 2007 to early 2008 and from August 2009 to February 2012, McLeod Cancer purchased a substantial amount of chemotherapy and other drugs, specifically, versions of Abraxane®, Alimta®, Avastin®, Eloxatin®, Gemzar®, Herceptin®, Rituxan®, Taxotere®, and Zometa®, from a foreign drug distributor in Canada that obtained these drugs from foreign sources. The drugs, sometimes with labeling in foreign languages or without dosage information, were not manufactured in establishments that were registered with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA, which has responsibility for enforcing the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act to ensure the health and safety of the American public, requires that any manufacturer or distributor of drugs in the United States be registered with and approved by the FDA. Drugs with labeling in a language other than English or from foreign sources not registered with the FDA are considered “misbranded.”
McLeod Cancer purchased the foreign drugs for amounts substantially below what drugs from legitimate U.S. drug manufacturers and distributors would have cost. Drs. Kincaid, Lamb, and Famoyin administered these drugs to their patients and submitted claims for the drugs to the Medicare, TennCare, and other government health benefit programs. Since these programs do not cover such drugs, the government has alleged all of these claims violated the Federal and State False Claims Acts.

“Medical practices that administer prescription drugs from non-FDA approved foreign sources are putting patients at risk of exposure to counterfeit, contaminated, ineffective, and potentially dangerous medications. This case is an example of the efforts the government will continue to make to minimize the chance of patients receiving such unsafe medication, as well as to ensure that Medicare and other health benefit programs do not pay for unapproved drugs,” said U.S. Attorney Bill Killian. Attorney General Robert Cooper added, “These settlements are a product of cooperation by state and federal agencies working together to ensure that Tennesseans are protected from possibly unsafe or ineffective misbranded drugs.”
Mr. Killian noted that these settlements, as well as the earlier conviction of Dr. Kincaid, resulted from a comprehensive parallel civil and criminal investigation conducted by the FDA Office of Criminal Investigation (FDA-OCI), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI), the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office. He commended the efforts of all who played a role in the complex investigation, including FDA-OCI Special Agent Bob West, FBI Special Agent Letitia Jones, TBI Special Agent Denise Morrissey Woodby, FBI Forensic Accountant LeAnn Lanz, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Neil Smith and Betsy Tonkin, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Ben Cunningham, and Assistant Tennessee Attorney General Eli Swiney.