Skip to main content
Subscribe
  • Sign Up Free
  • Login
  • Subscribe
  • News
    • Current News
    • Providers
    • Insurance
    • Government
    • Finance
    • Technology
    • Safety & Quality
    • Digital Health
    • Transformation
    • ESG
    • People
    • Regional News
    • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Patients
    • Operations
    • Care Delivery
    • Payment
    • Midwest
    • Northeast
    • South
    • West
  • Opinion
    • Bold Moves
    • Breaking Bias
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • Vital Signs Blog
    • From the Editor
  • Events & Awards
    • Awards
    • Conferences
    • Galas
    • Virtual Briefings
    • Webinars
    • Nominate/Eligibility
    • 100 Most Influential People
    • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
    • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
    • Excellence in Governance
    • Health Care Hall of Fame
    • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
    • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
    • Top Innovators
    • Diversity in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
      • - Leaders to Watch
    • Women in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Women Leaders
      • - Women to Watch
    • Digital Health Transformation Summit
    • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
    • Leadership Symposium
    • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
    • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
    • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
    • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
    • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
    • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
    • - Hospital of the Future
    • - Value Based Care
    • - Hospital at Home
    • - Workplace of the Future
    • - Digital Health
    • - Future of Staffing
    • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
  • Multimedia
    • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
    • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
    • Video Series - The Check Up
    • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
  • Data Center
    • Data Center Home
    • Hospital Financials
    • Staffing & Compensation
    • Quality & Safety
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Data Archive
    • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
    • Surveys
    • Data Points
  • Newsletters
  • MORE+
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Media Kit
    • Jobs
    • People on the Move
    • Reprints & Licensing
MENU
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. Law & Regulation
September 20, 2010 01:00 AM

How far can providers go?

Regulators grapple with antitrust, fraud-and-abuse issues under reform

Gregg Blesch
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print
    In a speech to the American Medical Association's House of Delegates, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz acknowledged that accountable care organizations and other new delivery models could affect antitrust enforcement.

    The architects of the national health reform law infused the legislation with ideas intended to gradually fix the incentives in healthcare delivery so that hospitals and physicians are rewarded for delivering better care for less money.

    Integration and coordination are at the heart of these provisions, and they may conflict with principles underlying the way the government polices financial incentives and competition in healthcare. The reform law did nothing to bring that legal framework into alignment with its payment and delivery experiments, except to note occasionally that the HHS secretary shall have the authority to issue waivers as deemed necessary to get the government out of the way of its new course.

    “All the rules we've been living by—or all the altars we've been worshipping at—are really either obstacles or speed bumps,” says Howard Hahn, a lawyer in Omaha, Neb., working with the Accountable Care Alliance, a nascent accountable care organization involving the Nebraska Medical Center and Methodist Health System. “I tend to think if the lawyering is done well, they are speed bumps,” Hahn says.

    Now six months since President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law, the federal agencies responsible for interpreting and enforcing the nation's antitrust and healthcare fraud-and-abuse laws are doing much the same thing as providers: They are scrambling to understand a changing landscape as it morphs around them.

    Under the healthcare reform law, by no later than 2012 Medicare must be rewarding providers that work together in ACOs to manage and coordinate care, if they meet quality benchmarks and achieve savings measured against what the government would expect to spend on beneficiaries with a similar mix of characteristics (as with many elements of the law, to be determined later).

    The law also establishes a five-year national pilot program on payment bundling—the subject of an existing demonstration project—and extends a demonstration project on gain-sharing, a cousin to the “shared savings” payment mechanism built into the ACO provision. The most-integrated ACOs might also share partially capitated rather than fee-for-service payments for their Medicare beneficiaries.

    The Federal Trade Commission, the CMS and HHS' inspector general's office say they are working through the issues collaboratively and plan to stage a workshop Oct. 5 that would bring together officials, stakeholders and policy experts at CMS headquarters in Baltimore.

    “From our point of view this is really an opportunity for the FTC to learn more how providers want to put together ACOs,” says Susan DeSanti, director of the FTC's office of policy planning. “Because antitrust is so fact- specific, we think it would help a lot to hear from providers, payers and other participants in the marketplace.” It's important that agencies work together, she says, to avoid situations in which the CMS might, for example, reward the performance of an ACO while the FTC hits the same providers with an antitrust complaint and the inspector general's office questions whether the referrals among the ACO's members are tainted by kickbacks.

    Asked if the FTC and fellow antitrust enforcers in the U.S. Justice Department might end up revising or amending their seminal “Statements of Health Care Antitrust Enforcement Policy” issued in 1996, DeSanti says, “That is just something we can't know at this point.”

    FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz acknowledged in a June speech delivered to the American Medical Association's House of Delegates that accountable care organizations and perhaps other models encouraged by the reform law could affect antitrust enforcement, particularly as providers extend them beyond Medicare into their contracts with private payers.

    “Such a transition could indeed raise competition issues, and we want to work with you going forward,” Leibowitz told the AMA delegates, a group that has long prodded the government for greater leeway or at least more detailed guidance for independent practices seeking to contract jointly with health plans. Price-fixing is not a risk if an ACO exists only in the realm of care and reimbursement for Medicare beneficiaries on the government's terms, though the accumulation of market power as big players merge or form joint ventures could draw a different sort of antitrust scrutiny. The FTC, however, hopes providers will form ACOs on a scale that pits them against one another for business.

    Leibowitz emphasized that the goals of many provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—improvements in the quality and efficiency of healthcare delivery—are the same goals that drive antitrust policy and enforcement. He noted, for example, that bundled payments—in which Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement will be divvied up among various facilities and physicians contributing to a single episode of care—provide a level of financial risk-sharing that might allow alliances of competing providers to contract with private payers without drawing price-fixing allegations.

    Provisions of the reform law might also technically set up providers to violate, at least technically, the anti-kickback statute, which bars any type of remuneration tied to the volume or value of referrals, and what's known as the Stark law, intended to prevent Medicare referrals tainted by a physician's financial interest. Another hurdle might be the authority of HHS' inspector general's office to penalize providers for creating incentives to limit or withhold care.

    “What are kickbacks going to look like in this integrated world?” Vicki Robinson, chief of the industry guidance branch of the inspector general's office, posed to a session this summer at the annual meeting of the American Health Lawyers Association. She suggested that new payment models always give rise to conflict about how organizations pick their business partners, and those motivations will be scrutinized. It's unclear, though, whether the government will conceive a new framework to judge them.

    “These ACOs are going to be a way to reward physicians and move patients to more efficient providers,” says W. Bradley Tully, a partner in the law firm Hooper, Lundy and Bookman in Los Angeles. “I would say the idea of doing ACOs hits the heart of all this. CMS has been very concerned historically about financial considerations influencing physicians in any way, and now from another perspective they're saying, let's rethink this—let's see if we can get physicians to provide more efficient care.”

    Tully says it has been rumored that the CMS plans to issue some sort of regulation that would provide broader guidance than advisory opinions to individual applicants, yet stop short of defining “template transactions” that would tell providers exactly how to structure deals that steer clear of trouble.

    A CMS spokesman declined to comment on the agency's course, responding in an e-mail that “these are some of the issues that we are considering, and the relevant agencies are working together.”

    J. Peter Rich, a partner in the Los Angeles office of the law firm McDermott Will & Emery, says providers looking to federal agencies for clarity on the antitrust and fraud-and-abuse issues arising from the healthcare reform law won't find it yet. “I'm not sure there are any answers,” says Rich, who contributed to a recent newsletter his firm issued on the payment and delivery provisions of the law.

    Rich says what's deterring providers more than any legal uncertainty is whether embarking on something as complex as an ACO will pay off, particularly because the statute allows Medicare patients assigned an ACO to seek care outside the network of providers ostensibly being held accountable. “There are a lot of question marks here,” Rich says. “Everybody's excited about doing something, but they're waiting to see what that something is.”

    That may be so, but quite a few healthcare organizations are not waiting and have announced plans to form ACOs in order to be ready for whatever materializes. Among providers that have announced plans, in addition to the Accountable Care Alliance in Omaha, are 10-hospital Baylor Health Care System, Dallas; 25-bed Bell Hospital in Ishpeming, Mich., with 315-bed Marquette (Mich.) General Health System; and CaroMont Health, the parent of 397-bed Gaston Memorial Hospital in Gastonia, N.C.

    Hahn, the lawyer working with the participants of the Omaha ACO, says he has attempted to draft flexible documents. to allow the alliance to evolve with federal policy and the marketplace. “My notion was, we don't know what's going to be coming, so let's build them as flexible as possible,” says Hahn, a partner in the law firm Husch Blackwell.

    The Omaha alliance is made up of the established physician-hospital organizations of 511-bed Nebraska Medical Center and two-hospital Methodist Health System. The ACO will adopt uniform clinical protocols and benchmarks, but each PHO will be responsible for collecting and distributing the money, Hahn says. A more intimate financial mingling might happen down the road, Hahn says, adding, “That presents potentially its own set of antitrust issues.”

    Hahn says the alliance is essentially working to shoehorn its mechanism for distributing savings accomplished by the alliance into advisory opinions in which HHS' inspector general's office has revealed its views of properly conceived safeguards for arrangements that the government calls “shared savings” and are more commonly known as gain-sharing. “They're all a lot the same and they're all pretty rigid,” he says of the advisory letters, which are specific to more than a dozen similar gain-sharing programs that have won a favorable response (applicants retract their applications before a negative opinion sees daylight).

    The CMS, meanwhile, last year proposed a Stark exception for shared-savings arrangements but withdrew it after providers balked at the complexity of meeting it. That exercise illustrates the challenge regulators face in providing a balance of clarity and flexibility.

    “Hopefully, the government's view will come around to match up with what we think is a new social policy,” Hahn says. “They need to have the law match the social policy.”

    Letter
    to the
    Editor

    Send us a letter

    Have an opinion about this story? Click here to submit a Letter to the Editor, and we may publish it in print.

    Recommended for You
    FTC healthcare
    FTC's noncompete ban could apply to nonprofits, former staffers say
    Medicaid website 2
    CMS’ Jonathan Blum - Redeterminations will make Medicaid stronger
    Most Popular
    1
    More healthcare organizations at risk of credit default, Moody's says
    2
    Centene fills out senior executive team with new president, COO
    3
    SCAN, CareOregon plan to merge into the HealthRight Group
    4
    Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan unveils big push that lets physicians take on risk, reap rewards
    5
    Bright Health weighs reverse stock split as delisting looms
    Sponsored Content
    Daily Dose Newsletter: Sign up to receive a late afternoon weekday roundup of that day’s breaking news and developments in healthcare.
    Get Newsletters

    Sign up for enewsletters and alerts to receive breaking news and in-depth coverage of healthcare events and trends, as they happen, right to your inbox.

    Subscribe Today
    MH Magazine Cover

    MH magazine offers content that sheds light on healthcare leaders’ complex choices and touch points—from strategy, governance, leadership development and finance to operations, clinical care, and marketing.

    Subscribe
    Connect with Us
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS

    Our Mission

    Modern Healthcare empowers industry leaders to succeed by providing unbiased reporting of the news, insights, analysis and data.

    Contact Us

    (877) 812-1581

    Email us

     

    Resources
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise with Us
    • Ad Choices Ad Choices
    • Sitemap
    Editorial Dept
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Code of Ethics
    • Awards
    • About Us
    Legal
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Privacy Request
    Modern Healthcare
    Copyright © 1996-2023. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • News
      • Current News
      • Providers
      • Insurance
      • Government
      • Finance
      • Technology
      • Safety & Quality
      • Digital Health
      • Transformation
        • Patients
        • Operations
        • Care Delivery
        • Payment
      • ESG
      • People
      • Regional News
        • Midwest
        • Northeast
        • South
        • West
      • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Opinion
      • Bold Moves
      • Breaking Bias
      • Commentaries
      • Letters
      • Vital Signs Blog
      • From the Editor
    • Events & Awards
      • Awards
        • Nominate/Eligibility
        • 100 Most Influential People
        • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
        • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
        • Excellence in Governance
        • Health Care Hall of Fame
        • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
        • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
        • Top Innovators
        • Diversity in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
          • - Leaders to Watch
        • Women in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Women Leaders
          • - Women to Watch
      • Conferences
        • Digital Health Transformation Summit
        • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
        • Leadership Symposium
        • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
        • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
      • Galas
        • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
        • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
        • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
        • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
      • Virtual Briefings
        • - Hospital of the Future
        • - Value Based Care
        • - Hospital at Home
        • - Workplace of the Future
        • - Digital Health
        • - Future of Staffing
        • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
      • Webinars
    • Multimedia
      • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
      • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
      • Video Series - The Check Up
      • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
    • Data Center
      • Data Center Home
      • Hospital Financials
      • Staffing & Compensation
      • Quality & Safety
      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Data Archive
      • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
      • Surveys
      • Data Points
    • Newsletters
    • MORE+
      • Contact Us
      • Advertise
      • Media Kit
      • Jobs
      • People on the Move
      • Reprints & Licensing