Magidson

Michael D. Magidson , Health Care and Business Attorney

As many health care providers are aware, the health care reform law (the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” or “ACA”) signed into law in March 2010 contained, among its numerous provisions, a requirement that pharmaceutical, medical device, biological, and medical supply manufacturers report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) any “payment or other transfer of value” to physicians and teaching hospitals. This provision is focused on disclosure only and does not limit or prohibit these types of financial relationships. The information will be posted on a public government website and HHS is required to submit annual reports regarding the information to both Congress and each state. Although the burden falls on the manufacturer to collect and report the information, physicians should be aware that the key details of their relationships with these manufacturers will be publicly available.

In general, the law requires disclosure of payments whether cash or in-kind transfers to all physicians and teaching hospitals including: compensation, food, entertainment or gifts, travel, consulting fees, honoraria, research funding or grants, education or conference funding, stocks or stock options, ownership or investment interest, royalties or licenses, charitable contributions, and any other transfer of value as determined by HHS. The disclosure must contain the receiving physician’s name, address, and national provider identifier; and the value, date, form and nature of the payment using standardized descriptions for the payment types listed above. If a payment is specific to a covered drug, device, biological or medical supply, the name of that product must be reported. Only a provider’s NPI will be kept private. The law also contains exceptions for certain types of gifts or payments. Of course, the legislation also provided for financial penalties for failure to report – up to $150,000 annually and up to $1,000,000 for knowingly failing to report. The law required the collection of data to begin on January 1, 2012, with reporting to CMS to begin on March 31, 2013.

As is the case with any piece of legislation, the devil is in the details. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), a part of HHS, published regulations intended to implement these disclosure requirements. After receiving voluminous public comments to the proposed rules, CMS recently announced that it was delaying the implementation date for the collection of the required data until January 1, 2013. CMS intends to release its final rules later this year, which it says “will provide CMS with additional time to address operational and implementation issues in a thoughtful manner, and the ability to ensure the accuracy of the data that is collected.” Stay tuned!

 

Michael D. Magidson , Health Care and Business Attorney

Indemnification provisions are standard in asset purchase agreements but they are frequently misunderstood or hastily drafted. An agreement to indemnify another is an ongoing, post-closing obligation with far-reaching implications. If you are being asked to sign such an agreement, it is important to understand how it works and look for ways to limit your exposure.

In general, to indemnify another in the asset purchase context means to assume all responsibility and liability for any losses or damages they might suffer arising out of your ownership of the assets. Indemnification is about allocation of risk; the indemnifying party is usually in a better position to avoid losses. For instance, the seller is more familiar than the buyer with the condition of the assets There are some ways to limit your indemnification exposure. An indemnification provision generally includes all losses suffered by the indemnified party, including attorneys’ fees and costs. Therefore, the indemnifying party should seek to have the ability to control the legal defense of a third party claim against the indemnified party so as to manage legal expenses. More fundamentally, it is essential to carefully examine the scope of the indemnification obligation to make sure that it contains reasonable scope and time limitations.

Read The Full Article

Stop, Drop and Re-Enroll

September 7, 2011

By Michael D. Magidson, Esq. Business and Healthcare Attorney Did you know that virtually all Medicare-enrolled providers and suppliers will be required to re-enroll with Medicare in the next 18 months?  A little-noticed provision in the recent health care reform law requires CMS to revalidate the enrollment information for all Medicare-enrolled providers and suppliers enrolled [...]

Read the full article →

More ACO Details Emerge

April 27, 2011

By Michael D. Magidson, Esq., Healthcare and Business Attorney Any ACO qualified by CMS for participation in the Medicare Shared Savings Program will be judged under the “rule of reason,” which is a higher threshold for a finding of illegal restraints on trade and should provide more flexibility in devising ACO structures. For ACOs with [...]

Read the full article →

CMS Finally Publishes Proposed ACO Rules

April 1, 2011

By Michael D. Magidson, Esq., Healthcare and Business Attorney First Quarter, 2010 On March 31, 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published the long-awaited proposed rules for accountable care organizations (ACOs).  We will send more detailed analyses of the proposed rules soon (they run 429 pages!), but the highlights are as follows:

Read the full article →

Big Brother is Watching…Even More Closely

May 28, 2010

By Michael D. Magidson, Esq., Healthcare and Business Attorney As noted in the last issue of STAT Health Care News, the federal government will be stepping up its enforcement of the health care laws.  In addition to increasing funding for such enforcement, the new health care reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [...]

Read the full article →

The Importance of “Internal” Corporate Documents

February 12, 2010

By Michael D. Magidson, Esq., Healthcare and Business Attorney First Quarter, 2010 In my practice, which covers both transactional and litigation matters, I frequently talk to clients who have started a new business entity, but neglected to create what I will call “internal” corporate documents (as opposed to the “external” documents filed with the Secretary of State’s office) – agreements laying out the [...]

Read the full article →