|
Legal Update
By Fulbright & Jaworski, of counsel to THA
President Bush Signs Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. On May 21, President George W. Bush signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (H.R. 493). The legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment. Specifically, the legislation makes it illegal for employers and insurers to deny coverage to individuals based on their genetic make-up.
Court Compels Dismissal of Suit against Hospital. On May 16, the Supreme Court of Texas confirmed that hospitals may obtain mandamus relief from a trial court's refusal to dismiss a health care liability claim that is unsupported by an adequate expert report.
McAllen Medical Center was sued by more than 400 claimants under various theories, all relating to the alleged negligent credentialing of Francisco Bracamontes, M.D. In support of these claims, plaintiffs submitted expert reports signed by Jetta Brown, M.D., as well as her curriculum vitae. In the court's words, “the curriculum vitae the plaintiffs submitted for Dr. Brown was a model of brevity.” Nothing in either her expert report or curriculum vitae demonstrated any specialized knowledge or expertise on hospital credentialing standards. The absence of such knowledge and expertise rendered the reports inadequate and Brown unqualified to express any opinion on whether or not the hospital engaged in negligent credentialing. While the hospital objected to Brown's reports and moved to dismiss the cases early in the litigation, for four years the court declined to rule on the hospital's motions.
The hospital sought relief to compel the trial court to dismiss the case. On these facts, the court concluded that the trial court's refusal to dismiss the cases was a clear abuse of discretion. Specifically, the court held that “mandamus relief is available when the purposes of the health care statute would otherwise be defeated.” Notably, the court interpreted the expert report requirement as a substantive right to which hospitals are entitled. When the very act of proceeding to trial defeats a substantive right, reasoned the court, an ordinary appeal is an inadequate remedy and mandamus relief is available. The opinion, In re McAllen Medical Center, Inc., D/B/A McAllen Medical Center and Universal Health Services, Inc., No. 05-0892 (May 16, 2008), is available here.
Fifth Circuit Sides with FTC in Physician Price-Fixing Case. On May 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a decision by the Federal Trade Commission, which concluded that North Texas Specialty Physicians, an association of independent physicians in Fort Worth, had engaged in horizontal price-fixing in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
The FTC originally filed its administrative complaint against NTSP in September 2003, alleging that the physician group had engaged in conduct designed to enhance the collective bargaining power of its members through the use of member polls on prospective fees and communication of poll results to members in a manner that affected payment levels in non-risk sharing contracts. The administrative law judge ruled in favor of the FTC, and the FTC subsequently upheld the decision on appeal. In continuing to uphold the FTC's decision, the Fifth Circuit stated that "the record evidence supports the FTC's factual finding that NTSP regularly informed payors that its physicians had established minimum fees for NTSP-payor agreements, identified the fee minimums, and ... that NTSP would not enter into or forward to any of its physicians payor offers that were below the minimums." In rejecting NTSP's arguments that it was acting as its own entity and that it was the "sole actor" for antitrust purposes, the court went on to say that "as the FTC pointed out, antitrust law would be easily evaded if illegal joint activity could be transformed into legal unilateral activity through the formation of a single trust or other corporate entity."
The case has particular significance as not only the first physician price-fixing case to be litigated up to the level of a federal appeals court, but also in providing authority in support of the FTC's "quick look" analytical approach in determining whether an arrangement violates federal law.
CMS Releases Medicare Part D Data Final Rule. On May 22, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released a final rule that permits Part D claims data to be used for health care coordination, quality improvement and program monitoring. The final rule also allows CMS to release Part D claims data to other federal government agencies, state agencies, external researchers and Medicare beneficiaries. To address privacy concerns, in the final rule CMS included several safeguards to protect beneficiary privacy, such as: (1) CMS will not release beneficiary, prescriber or pharmacy identifiers to external researchers or other government agencies unless it is necessary for purposes of a research study; (2) the rule does not extend to Part D plan-specific bid data, rebates, risk-sharing, reinsurance or payment information collected outside of a Part D claim; and (3) if data are released to external researchers, Part D plan identifiers will be encrypted and cost data elements will be aggregated. In addition, the Part D claims data will be used to improve CMS' knowledge of the effect of drugs in the elderly and disabled populations. Other agencies such as the federal Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health will use the Part D claims data in their research studies. Beneficiary-identifiable Part D claims data will not be released for commercial purposes.
Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, and the Texas Hospital Association make no warranties or representations of any sort with respect to this update, including any warranties or representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any of the information, facts or opinions contained herein. The information does not constitute the delivery of legal advice, and does not, by itself, establish an attorney-client relationship. The Texas Hospital Association is not liable for the accuracy of the information presented here, and this information does not imply endorsement of any kind.
|