Below is a list of all the 2011 FSB honorees:
* Mike Bonasso - Commercial Litigation
* Stephen Brooks - Medical Malpractice Law and Personal Injury Litigation
* Bob Coffield - Health Care Law
* Tom Flaherty - Personal Injury Litigation
* David Givens - Medical Malpractice Law
* Ted Martin - Medical Malpractice Law
* Mark Robinson - Medical Malpractice Law
* Don Sensabaugh - Medical Malpractice Law and Personal Injury Litigation
* Jeff Wakefield - Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Medical Malpractice
Best Lawyers is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey in which more than 39,000 leading attorneys cast almost 3.1 million votes on the legal abilities of other lawyers in their practice areas. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers "the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice."
Friday, August 20, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
CMS Awards WV Medicaid $945K Federal Matching Funds for EHR Incentive Programs
iHealthBeat reports that West Virginia Medicaid along with five other states will receive federal matching funds from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS)to help implement electronic health record (EHR) incentive programs.
West Virginia Medicaid will receive $945,000 in federal matching funds. The CMS press release indicates that West Virginia will use the funds for planning activities that include conducting a comprehensive analysis to determine the current status of HIT activities in the state. The funds will be used to gather information on issues such as existing barriers to its use of EHRs, provider eligibility for EHR incentive payments, and the creation of a State Medicaid HIT Plan.
The CMS press release states:
WEST VIRGINIA TO RECEIVE FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS FOR ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD INCENTIVES PROGRAM
In another key step to further states’ role in developing a robust U.S. health information technology (HIT) infrastructure, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced today that West Virginia’s Medicaid program will receive federal matching funds for state planning activities necessary to implement the electronic health record (EHR) incentive program established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). West Virginia will receive approximately $945,000 in federal matching funds.
EHRs will improve the quality of health care for the citizens of West Virginia and make their care more efficient. The records make it easier for the many providers who may be treating a Medicaid patient to coordinate care. Additionally, EHRs make it easier for patients to access the information they need to make decisions about their health care.
The Recovery Act provides a 90 percent federal match for state planning activities to administer the incentive payments to Medicaid providers, to ensure their proper payments through audits and to participate in statewide efforts to promote interoperability and meaningful use of EHR technology statewide and, eventually, across the nation.
“We congratulate West Virginia for qualifying for these federal matching funds to assist its plan for implementing the Recovery Act’s EHR incentive program,” said Cindy Mann, director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations at CMS. “Meaningful and interoperable use of EHRs in Medicaid will increase health care efficiency, reduce medical errors and improve quality-outcomes and patient satisfaction within and across the states.”
West Virginia will use its federal matching funds for planning activities that include conducting a comprehensive analysis to determine the current status of HIT activities in the state. As part of that process, West Virginia will gather information on issues such as existing barriers to its use of EHRs, provider eligibility for EHR incentive payments, and the creation of a State Medicaid HIT Plan, which will define the state’s vision for its long-term HIT use.
West Virginia Medicaid will receive $945,000 in federal matching funds. The CMS press release indicates that West Virginia will use the funds for planning activities that include conducting a comprehensive analysis to determine the current status of HIT activities in the state. The funds will be used to gather information on issues such as existing barriers to its use of EHRs, provider eligibility for EHR incentive payments, and the creation of a State Medicaid HIT Plan.
The CMS press release states:
WEST VIRGINIA TO RECEIVE FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS FOR ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD INCENTIVES PROGRAM
In another key step to further states’ role in developing a robust U.S. health information technology (HIT) infrastructure, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced today that West Virginia’s Medicaid program will receive federal matching funds for state planning activities necessary to implement the electronic health record (EHR) incentive program established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). West Virginia will receive approximately $945,000 in federal matching funds.
EHRs will improve the quality of health care for the citizens of West Virginia and make their care more efficient. The records make it easier for the many providers who may be treating a Medicaid patient to coordinate care. Additionally, EHRs make it easier for patients to access the information they need to make decisions about their health care.
The Recovery Act provides a 90 percent federal match for state planning activities to administer the incentive payments to Medicaid providers, to ensure their proper payments through audits and to participate in statewide efforts to promote interoperability and meaningful use of EHR technology statewide and, eventually, across the nation.
“We congratulate West Virginia for qualifying for these federal matching funds to assist its plan for implementing the Recovery Act’s EHR incentive program,” said Cindy Mann, director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations at CMS. “Meaningful and interoperable use of EHRs in Medicaid will increase health care efficiency, reduce medical errors and improve quality-outcomes and patient satisfaction within and across the states.”
West Virginia will use its federal matching funds for planning activities that include conducting a comprehensive analysis to determine the current status of HIT activities in the state. As part of that process, West Virginia will gather information on issues such as existing barriers to its use of EHRs, provider eligibility for EHR incentive payments, and the creation of a State Medicaid HIT Plan, which will define the state’s vision for its long-term HIT use.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
WVHCA: Proposed CON Standards for Megavoltage Radiation Therapy Services/Units
The West Virginia Health Care Authority has issued a Notice of Public Comment Period on a new Proposed Certificate of Need Standard for Megavoltage Radiation Therapy Services/Unit.
Written comments on the proposed Certificate of Need Standard must be filed with the Authority on or before July 30, 2010. Written comments should be directed to Timothy E. Adkins, Director of Certificate of Need Division.
Written comments on the proposed Certificate of Need Standard must be filed with the Authority on or before July 30, 2010. Written comments should be directed to Timothy E. Adkins, Director of Certificate of Need Division.
Monday, June 28, 2010
WVHCA: Proposed Amendment to West Virginia CON Law Defintion of "Private Office Practice"
On June 15, 2010, the West Virginia Health Care Authority filed a Notice of a Comment Period on a Proposed Rule with the West Virginia Secretary of State amending West Virginia CSR 65-7, Certificate of Need Rule.
According to the Summary and Statement of Circumstances filed with the Proposed Rule the "amendment clarifies the definition of "private office practice" for purposes of administering the Certificate of Need Program. Those entities meeting this criteria may be eligible for an exemption from Certificate of Need review pursuant to West Virginia Code 16-2D-R(a)."
Written comments on the Proposed Rule are due on or before July 16, 2010.
According to the Summary and Statement of Circumstances filed with the Proposed Rule the "amendment clarifies the definition of "private office practice" for purposes of administering the Certificate of Need Program. Those entities meeting this criteria may be eligible for an exemption from Certificate of Need review pursuant to West Virginia Code 16-2D-R(a)."
Written comments on the Proposed Rule are due on or before July 16, 2010.
Friday, June 25, 2010
What Health Care Employers Need to Know about the West Virginia Patient Safety Act
In 2001, the West Virginia Legislature passed the Patient Safety Act (“PSA”), W.Va. Code § 16-39-1 et seq. The purpose of the PSA was to provide an avenue for health care workers to report instances of waste or wrongdoing without the fear of retaliatory or discriminatory treatment by their employers through termination, demotion, reduction of time, lost wage, or lost benefits. The PSA requires the identity of a health care worker who reports waste or wrongdoing to a health care entity (e.g., hospital, clinic, nursing facility, etc.) or appropriate governmental authority to remain confidential. Health care entities are also required to post a summary of the important provisions of the PSA on the premises for its employees.
It is important for health care entities to understand that the PSA prohibits retaliation or discrimination against a health care worker who made a good faith report; advocated on behalf of patients, services or conditions of a health care entity; or cooperated in any investigation relating to the care, services or conditions of the health care entity. A health care worker who has been retaliated or discriminated against by his or her employer in violation of the PSA may file a civil suit and recover payment of back wages, costs of the litigation, reasonable attorney fees, and even reinstatement.
Many employers in West Virginia have had experience with the West Virginia Human Rights Act (“WVHRA”), W.Va. Code § 5-11-1 et seq, and its exception to the “at-will” employment doctrine. The WVHRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, disability, and familial status. The WVHRA has been used by former employees as a way to defeat “at-will” employment by alleging that they were wrongfully terminated based on a protected status, rather than for unsatisfactory job performance. Although initially designed to improve the quality of patient care, the PSA has also been used by some former health care employees as a way to get around the concept of “at-will” employment. For example, a discharged health care worker could potentially sue his former employer using the PSA to allege that he was discriminated against after he reported instances of the employer’s waste and wrongdoing.
Health care entities must take special care not only to document the unsatisfactory performance of its employees, but also document and investigate complaints of waste or wrongdoing to shield itself from such PSA lawsuits. These lawsuits can be quite complicated as they encompass elements of both employment litigation and medical professional liability litigation.
Monday, June 21, 2010
ONC Issues Final Rule for EHR Temporary Certification Program
Last Friday the Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) issued a final rule providing the details on how organizations can be authorized by ONC to test and certify EHR technology. ONC discusses the details the Temporary Certification Program.
Certification is important because the Medicare and Medicaid EHR incentives under HITECH require the use of certificate EHR technology for eligible hospital and providers to recieve payments under the incentive program.
For more information check out the Temporary Certification Program information on the ONC Health IT website, including a link to a complete copy of the Temporary Certification Program Final Rule.
More information from Government Health IT, ONC launches health IT certification program and iHealthBeat, ONC To Start Accepting Bids for Entities to Certify EHR Products.
UPDATE (6/24/2010): The official Federal Register version of the Final Rule is now available: 45 CFR Part 170, Establishment of the Temporary Certification Program for Health Information Technology; Final Rule (75 Fed. Reg. 36158, June 24, 2010). The Final Rule is effective on June 24, 2010.
Certification is important because the Medicare and Medicaid EHR incentives under HITECH require the use of certificate EHR technology for eligible hospital and providers to recieve payments under the incentive program.
For more information check out the Temporary Certification Program information on the ONC Health IT website, including a link to a complete copy of the Temporary Certification Program Final Rule.
More information from Government Health IT, ONC launches health IT certification program and iHealthBeat, ONC To Start Accepting Bids for Entities to Certify EHR Products.
UPDATE (6/24/2010): The official Federal Register version of the Final Rule is now available: 45 CFR Part 170, Establishment of the Temporary Certification Program for Health Information Technology; Final Rule (75 Fed. Reg. 36158, June 24, 2010). The Final Rule is effective on June 24, 2010.
SAMHSA and ONC: FAQs on Substance Abuse Confidentiality Regulations for HIEs
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) announced last week the release of FAQs for Applying the Substance Abuse Confidentiality Regulations to Health Information Exchanges (HIEs).
Cover letter regarding the FAQs by Pamela S. Hyde, the Administrator of SAMHSA, and David Blumenthal, National Coordinator for ONC. The letter describes that the the Substance Abuse Confidentiality Regulations under 42 CFR Part 2 were enacted years ago (circa 1975). Due to the age of the regulations SAMHSA and ONC created the FAQs to provide guidance and understanding of the scope of these regulations in the context of today's move toward an electronic health information system.
The FAQs outline the general requirements under 42 CFR Part 2, provide guidance on its application to HIEs, and identify methods for including substance abuse related health information into HIEs that is consistent with the Federal statute.
As a follow-up to the release of the FAQs, SAMHSA and ONC will convene a meeting of concerned or interested parties from both the Behavioral Health and Information Technology (BH-IT) communities on August 4, 2010. The meeting will be an opportunity for SAMHSA and ONC to receive questions and comments on the FAQs.
The FAQs for Applying the Substance Abuse Confidentiality Regulations to Health Information Exchanges (HIEs) provide information on the following 37 questions:
1. Does the federal law that protects the confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records allow information about patients with substance use disorders to be included in electronic health information exchange systems?
2. What types of providers are covered programs under 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”)?
3. What patients, and which records and information, are protected by 42 C.F.R Part 2?
4. For the purposes of the applicability of 42 CFR Part 2, does it matter how HIOs are structured?
5. Does 42 CFR Part 2 permit the disclosure of information without a patient’s consent for the purposes of treatment, payment, or health care operations?
6. Under Part 2, can a Qualified Service Organization Agreement (QSOA) be used to facilitate communication between a Part 2 program and an HIO?
7. May information protected by Part 2 be made available to an HIO for electronic exchange?
8. If Part 2 information has been disclosed to the HIO, either pursuant to a Part 2- compliant consent form authorizing such disclosure or under a QSOA, may the HIO then make that Part 2 information available to HIO-affiliated members?
9. How do different HIO patient choice models regarding whether general clinical health information may be disclosed to or through an HIO (e.g., no consent, opt in or opt out) affect the requirements of 42 CFR Part 2?
10. If an HIO is holding or storing Part 2 patient data through a QSOA, can the HIO redisclose the data coming from the Part 2 program to a third party without patient consent?
11. What are the required elements of a patient consent under Part 2?
12. What must a Part 2 program do to notify the HIO, or any other recipient of Part 2 protected information, that it may not redisclose Part 2 information without patient consent?
13. Can a single consent form be used to authorize the disclosure of Part 2 information to an HIO, as well as authorize the redisclosure of that information to other identified parties, such as HIO affiliated members?
14. Does Part 2 allow the use of multiple-party consent forms?
15. Does Part 2 require the use of original signed consents?
16. Under Part 2, may an HIO release demographic information about Part 2 patients without patient consent?
17. Under Part 2, can an HIO reveal that a patient had an encounter at a mixed use facility (or “general medical” facility – see FAQ #2) as long as the HIO does not reveal that the patient was in the mixed use facility’s Part 2 program? A mixed use facility can be defined as a service provider organization that provides substance abuse treatment services as well as other health services such as primary care, dental care, mental health services, social services, etc.
18. Under Part 2, can an HIO use a consent form that provides for disclosure to “HIO members” and refers to the HIO’s website for a list of those members?
19. Can an HIO use a consent form under Part 2 to allow for the disclosure of information to future HIO affiliated health care providers?
20. Can an HIO use a consent form under Part 2 to allow for the disclosure of information to health care providers who are providing on-call coverage for HIO affiliated health care providers or with whom those affiliated providers consult?
21. Can a Part 2 patient consent be used to enable multiple disclosures?
22. Can a Part 2 program or HIO use a consent form that has no specific expiration date but rather states that disclosure is permitted until consent is revoked by the patient?
23. Is “treatment” a sufficient description of the intended purpose of a disclosure on a Part 2 consent?
24. Under Part 2, can any health care provider make the determination that a medical emergency exists, or must a Part 2 provider make that determination?
25. May a computer system be used to automatically determine whether a medical emergency exists and whether a disclosure of Part 2 data can be made without the patient’s consent?
26. If a medical emergency exists, can the entire Part 2 record be released?
27. For documentation purposes, if a medical emergency is present, would it be permissible under Part 2 to have treating providers simply check a drop down box signifying the existence of such a medical emergency?
28. Under Part 2, may an HIO system make clinical decision support functions (such as showing a patient’s medications to clinicians when they write prescriptions, automatically ordering medications, and/or alerting clinicians about potential drug interactions) available to HIO affiliated health care providers in a medical emergency?
29. Does the Part 2 definition of medical emergency also include mental health emergencies?
30. When the HIO keeps an electronic record of a medical emergency, does that fully meet Part 2’s requirement to document disclosures made in a medical emergencies in the patient’s record?
31. If an HIO’s electronic system makes a disclosure in a medical emergency, would documenting the name of the discloser as “electronically disclosed through the system administered by HIO” meet Part 2’s requirement that the name of the person who made the disclosure be documented in the patient’s record?
32. If an HIO’s electronic system sends Part 2 data in a medical emergency to a printer or fax machine in the emergency room, can “the printer in the emergency department” meet Part 2’s requirement to document in the patient’s record the name of the person to whom the disclosure was made?
33. Once Part 2 information is disclosed in a medical emergency, can that information be redisclosed without obtaining patient consent?
34. If a patient has previously refused to consent to the release of his/her Part 2 record to a particular HIO affiliated health care provider, and then the patient is brought to that provider in a bona fide medical emergency situation, can that provider gain access through the HIO to the information without the patient’s consent under Part 2?
35. Can an HIO disclose data for Disease Management purposes under Part 2 without patient consent?
36. Under Part 2, would an HIO be permitted to disclose to an HIO affiliated payer the data of several patients held by the HIO, which may include Part 2 data, in order for the payer to target where interventions could be made with particular patients to improve care and management of disease?
37. If an HIO affiliated health care provider wishes to gain access to a minor’s Part 2 record held by the HIO, may the HIO or provider obtain only the consent of a parent or guardian, or must the minor’s consent also be obtained?
Cover letter regarding the FAQs by Pamela S. Hyde, the Administrator of SAMHSA, and David Blumenthal, National Coordinator for ONC. The letter describes that the the Substance Abuse Confidentiality Regulations under 42 CFR Part 2 were enacted years ago (circa 1975). Due to the age of the regulations SAMHSA and ONC created the FAQs to provide guidance and understanding of the scope of these regulations in the context of today's move toward an electronic health information system.
The FAQs outline the general requirements under 42 CFR Part 2, provide guidance on its application to HIEs, and identify methods for including substance abuse related health information into HIEs that is consistent with the Federal statute.
As a follow-up to the release of the FAQs, SAMHSA and ONC will convene a meeting of concerned or interested parties from both the Behavioral Health and Information Technology (BH-IT) communities on August 4, 2010. The meeting will be an opportunity for SAMHSA and ONC to receive questions and comments on the FAQs.
The FAQs for Applying the Substance Abuse Confidentiality Regulations to Health Information Exchanges (HIEs) provide information on the following 37 questions:
1. Does the federal law that protects the confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records allow information about patients with substance use disorders to be included in electronic health information exchange systems?
2. What types of providers are covered programs under 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”)?
3. What patients, and which records and information, are protected by 42 C.F.R Part 2?
4. For the purposes of the applicability of 42 CFR Part 2, does it matter how HIOs are structured?
5. Does 42 CFR Part 2 permit the disclosure of information without a patient’s consent for the purposes of treatment, payment, or health care operations?
6. Under Part 2, can a Qualified Service Organization Agreement (QSOA) be used to facilitate communication between a Part 2 program and an HIO?
7. May information protected by Part 2 be made available to an HIO for electronic exchange?
8. If Part 2 information has been disclosed to the HIO, either pursuant to a Part 2- compliant consent form authorizing such disclosure or under a QSOA, may the HIO then make that Part 2 information available to HIO-affiliated members?
9. How do different HIO patient choice models regarding whether general clinical health information may be disclosed to or through an HIO (e.g., no consent, opt in or opt out) affect the requirements of 42 CFR Part 2?
10. If an HIO is holding or storing Part 2 patient data through a QSOA, can the HIO redisclose the data coming from the Part 2 program to a third party without patient consent?
11. What are the required elements of a patient consent under Part 2?
12. What must a Part 2 program do to notify the HIO, or any other recipient of Part 2 protected information, that it may not redisclose Part 2 information without patient consent?
13. Can a single consent form be used to authorize the disclosure of Part 2 information to an HIO, as well as authorize the redisclosure of that information to other identified parties, such as HIO affiliated members?
14. Does Part 2 allow the use of multiple-party consent forms?
15. Does Part 2 require the use of original signed consents?
16. Under Part 2, may an HIO release demographic information about Part 2 patients without patient consent?
17. Under Part 2, can an HIO reveal that a patient had an encounter at a mixed use facility (or “general medical” facility – see FAQ #2) as long as the HIO does not reveal that the patient was in the mixed use facility’s Part 2 program? A mixed use facility can be defined as a service provider organization that provides substance abuse treatment services as well as other health services such as primary care, dental care, mental health services, social services, etc.
18. Under Part 2, can an HIO use a consent form that provides for disclosure to “HIO members” and refers to the HIO’s website for a list of those members?
19. Can an HIO use a consent form under Part 2 to allow for the disclosure of information to future HIO affiliated health care providers?
20. Can an HIO use a consent form under Part 2 to allow for the disclosure of information to health care providers who are providing on-call coverage for HIO affiliated health care providers or with whom those affiliated providers consult?
21. Can a Part 2 patient consent be used to enable multiple disclosures?
22. Can a Part 2 program or HIO use a consent form that has no specific expiration date but rather states that disclosure is permitted until consent is revoked by the patient?
23. Is “treatment” a sufficient description of the intended purpose of a disclosure on a Part 2 consent?
24. Under Part 2, can any health care provider make the determination that a medical emergency exists, or must a Part 2 provider make that determination?
25. May a computer system be used to automatically determine whether a medical emergency exists and whether a disclosure of Part 2 data can be made without the patient’s consent?
26. If a medical emergency exists, can the entire Part 2 record be released?
27. For documentation purposes, if a medical emergency is present, would it be permissible under Part 2 to have treating providers simply check a drop down box signifying the existence of such a medical emergency?
28. Under Part 2, may an HIO system make clinical decision support functions (such as showing a patient’s medications to clinicians when they write prescriptions, automatically ordering medications, and/or alerting clinicians about potential drug interactions) available to HIO affiliated health care providers in a medical emergency?
29. Does the Part 2 definition of medical emergency also include mental health emergencies?
30. When the HIO keeps an electronic record of a medical emergency, does that fully meet Part 2’s requirement to document disclosures made in a medical emergencies in the patient’s record?
31. If an HIO’s electronic system makes a disclosure in a medical emergency, would documenting the name of the discloser as “electronically disclosed through the system administered by HIO” meet Part 2’s requirement that the name of the person who made the disclosure be documented in the patient’s record?
32. If an HIO’s electronic system sends Part 2 data in a medical emergency to a printer or fax machine in the emergency room, can “the printer in the emergency department” meet Part 2’s requirement to document in the patient’s record the name of the person to whom the disclosure was made?
33. Once Part 2 information is disclosed in a medical emergency, can that information be redisclosed without obtaining patient consent?
34. If a patient has previously refused to consent to the release of his/her Part 2 record to a particular HIO affiliated health care provider, and then the patient is brought to that provider in a bona fide medical emergency situation, can that provider gain access through the HIO to the information without the patient’s consent under Part 2?
35. Can an HIO disclose data for Disease Management purposes under Part 2 without patient consent?
36. Under Part 2, would an HIO be permitted to disclose to an HIO affiliated payer the data of several patients held by the HIO, which may include Part 2 data, in order for the payer to target where interventions could be made with particular patients to improve care and management of disease?
37. If an HIO affiliated health care provider wishes to gain access to a minor’s Part 2 record held by the HIO, may the HIO or provider obtain only the consent of a parent or guardian, or must the minor’s consent also be obtained?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)