Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Ohio Hospitals and Healthcare Clinics: It’s Time to Revisit Your Billing and Collection Practices

Client Alert
February 1, 2021

According to a recent Cuyahoga County case, certain healthcare entities may not be protected from liability when engaging in unfair or deceptive billing acts. This decision is consistent with the growing trend across the country to encourage price transparency and eliminate unfair surprise billing practices by health care organizations.[1] Now is the time for hospitals and other health care organizations to revisit their billing and collection policies and procedures to confirm that they are legally defensible and consistent with best practices.

New Developments

On January 14, 2021, the trial court in Cuyahoga County ruled in Brakle v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation that Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”) does not exclude transactions between patients and hospitals or healthcare clinics. These healthcare entities are not “physicians” as such term is defined in the CSPA and are therefore not shielded from liability stemming from consumer transactions.

Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act

The CSPA prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with a consumer transaction.[2] Examples of unfair or deceptive acts/practices under Ohio law include but are not limited to: (1) failing to notify a customer that the customer has a right to an estimate for any service that will cost over $25; (2) failing to provide an estimate upon request; and (3) failing to give the customer a receipt after accepting a deposit.[3] As defined, a consumer transaction means, in part, a service to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household.[4] The law expressly carves out transactions between physicians and their patients.[5] Therefore, transactions between physicians and their patients are not subject to the rules and regulations surrounding unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

Brakle v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation

Pursuant to an order from her physician, Amanda van Brakle (“Plaintiff”) visited a Cleveland Clinic (“Defendant”) facility in 2018 for radiology services. No physician participated in administering the services. At no time prior to the services did Defendant inform Plaintiff that she was entitled to an estimate of the cost of the services nor was she given any estimate of the cost. At the appointment, Plaintiff made a small payment toward the total cost of the service and was not given a receipt for such payment. Over time, Plaintiff made additional payments toward the bill and Defendant failed to render receipts. Defendant also credited these payments to a balance owed for different services and not the radiology services. Defendant eventually sent Plaintiff’s debt to collection. Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant for violations of the CSPA for failing to notify her of her rights to a pre-service estimate, failing to provide such an estimate, and failing to provide receipts.

Defendant filed motion for summary judgment (i.e., asking the court to dismiss the case) on several grounds, but the overarching justification being the service provided to Plaintiff is not a “consumer transaction” covered by the CSPA since the law excludes transactions between physicians and their patients. The Court ultimately disagreed with Defendant and denied the motion for summary judgment. The Court found that “physician” means a person skilled in the art of healing or a practitioner of medicine; a person duly authorized or licensed to treat diseases; and one lawfully engaged in the practice of medicine.[6] Simply put, Defendant is not a human being. The Court stated it is a corporate entity clearly outside of the definition of “physician” as commonly understood.[7] As such, the transaction at issue is not protected by the CSPA, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the case will proceed.

Please contact attorneys Kate Hickner at kehickner@bmdllc.com or Kevin Cripe at kmcripe@bmdllc.com should you have any additional questions about Brakle v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, surprise billing, or other general healthcare issues.

[1] See American Medical Association High-Level Summary of the No Surprises Act (2020) https://osma.org/aws/OSMA/asset_manager/get_file/527681?ver=0

[2] Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.02(A).

[3] Ohio Admin. Code § 109:4-3-05, 07.

[4] Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.01(A).

[5] Id.

[6] Citing Chiropractic Clinic of Solon v. Kutsko, 92 Ohio App.3d 608, 611 (8th Dist. 1994).

[7] Brakle v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Journal Entry (Jan. 14, 2021), pg. 5., https://www.accountsrecovery.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/van-Brakle-v-Cleveland-Clinic.pdf.

Kate HicknerKevin CripeHealth LawBMD Healthcare & Hospital Lawpatient billing
Client Alert

Changes to FFCRA Paid Leave: Congress’ Revisions to Employment COVID-19 Leave Benefits Signals the Light is at the End of the Tunnel

December 28, 2020Late in the evening on December 27th, President Trump signed into law the government’s $900 billion COVID-19 relief package (the “Stimulus Bill”). Among other economic stimulus benefits, the Stimulus Bill contains the $600 stimulus checks that will be issued to eligible individuals as well as, relevantly, changes to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”). The FFCRA was implemented in April 2020 and provided benefits to individuals who missed work as a result of an actual or suspected COVID-19 illness or to care for a child when their school or childcare service was closed because of COVID-19. Importantly, the Stimulus Bill extends eligibility for employer payroll tax refunds for leave payments made to employees on or before March 31, 2021 under the FFCRA, signaling to the American people that Congress believes many of the employed public will be vaccinated by this time, the light at the end of the tunnel. However, the Stimulus Bill does contain a caveat that employers are no longer required to provide FFCRA leave benefits after December 31, 2020, but if they do, they will receive the payroll tax credits, up to the maximums provided in the FFCRA, for payments made prior to April 1, 2021. Below we provide a list of questions and answers we received to date following the passage of the Stimulus Bill. We expect the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) to issue additional questions and answers as the Stimulus Bill is implemented, and we will update this Client Alert as these are received.Client Alert

Healthcare Speaker Programs: New OIG Alert

December 11, 2020In a rare Special Fraud Alert issued on November 16, 2020 (the “Alert”), the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) urged companies who host speaker programs to reassess their programs in light of the “inherent risks” associated with these activities. The Alert reports that, in the last three years, drug and device companies have reported paying nearly $2 billion to health care professionals for speaker-related services.Client Alert

Value-Based Care Advances – CMS Issues New Final Rules for Stark and Anti-Kickback Statutes

December 11, 2020The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) issued two highly anticipated (and quite extensive) Final Rules to reform the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) regulations. The Final Rules generally take effect on January 19, 2021. The Final Rules include new safe harbors for the AKS and new exemptions to the Stark Law to allow for greater flexibility. According to the HHS, the goal of updating both laws is to make it easier for providers to engage in care coordination and value-based care programs without running afoul of the statutes. Please note that this client alert could not cover the full extent of the Final Rule changes so please contact your BMD Healthcare attorney with questions.Client Alert

Mandatory Filings Under CFIUS New Rules

December 11, 2020On September 15, 2020, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) promulgated a final rule modifying its mandatory declaration requirements for certain foreign investment transactions involving “TID US businesses” (sensitive U.S. businesses dealing in critical technologies, critical infrastructure and sensitive personal data) dealing in “critical technologies” – i.e., U.S. businesses that produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop one or more critical technologies. The new rule also makes amendments to the definition of the term “substantial interest” (used to determine whether a foreign government has a substantial interest in an entity). The final rule became effective on October 15, 2020.Client Alert

IRS Guidance on Employee Retention Credit

December 11, 2020The Employee Retention Credit created under Section 2302 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act is a refundable tax credit against certain employment taxes equal to 50 percent of the qualified wages an eligible employer pays to employees after March 12, 2020, and before January 1, 2021. Since the adoption of the CARES Act, employers have expressed concern that if one employer acquires another employer that previously received a PPP loan, the acquirer’s entire aggregated group may no longer be eligible to claim the Employee Retention Credit.
Older posts
Newer posts