Surging COVID-19 cases, COVID-19 vaccination considerations and post-election impacts are just a few of the many evolving issues facing healthcare employers as we head into the end of 2020. If you missed our recent Healthcare Industry Key Trends webinar, please consider watching as our Jackson Lewis colleagues touch on many
Articles Discussing The Workplace In The Health Care Industry.
As hospitals and healthcare providers/systems (collectively, “Healthcare Providers”) across the nation have been reacting to spiking COVID-19 cases, an increased, imminent cybercrime threat targeting Healthcare Providers has emerged—ransomware. Ransomware is a distinct type of malware (malicious software) that attempts to deny victims access to their data until a ransom is paid.
Earlier this year, we reported on an evolution in the form of cyberattack known as ransomware –attackers transitioning from denying affected users access to critical data by encrypting it to removing data from the compromised systems and threatening public release in exchange for payment. These attacks typically target the companies
Employees—particularly healthcare employees—are increasingly refusing to work because of safety concerns and the need for accommodations related to COVID-19. In certain circumstances, these refusals may trigger protections afforded by the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), among
Healthcare employers, human resource directors, in-house counsel, and other professionals who routinely deal with contracting issues should understand that physician employment arrangements are unlike other employment contracts. Physician employment (and independent contractor) agreements pose unique and heightened risks that deserve utmost caution.
When is the last time one of your employees asked how much an in-network physician’s visit would cost? How much does a blood test cost at the hospital to which your doctor referred you, compared to the same blood test at another facility you could use?
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires healthcare employers to protect their medical staff and employees from harassment and discrimination and respond to any such behaviors swiftly and effectively, even if the actor is a patient, rather than a coworker or supervisor. A decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit illustrates employers’ obligations when the harasser is a patient. Gardner v. CLC of Pascagoula, L.L.C., 915 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2019).
Healthcare facilities in California have been required to adhere to mandatory nurse-to-patient ratios since 2004. These ratios vary depending upon the degree of patient care involved. More recently, Massachusetts passed a law requiring mandatory staffing minimums in the state’s ICU’s. Other states are considering jumping on the bandwagon. A California-like bill is currently pending in the Illinois General Assembly. Additionally, groups in Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and the District of Columbia are asking state lawmakers to consider similar measures.
Public discourse on “healthcare” has focused primarily on health insurance and the significant changes made by the Affordable Care Act. But what about the providers of healthcare—the doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical and medical device companies, home care agencies—that make up the industry itself? As the healthcare landscape shifts, so do the risks and challenges healthcare industry employers face.
Aging is inevitable. As the general population trends older, so do the physicians providing care across the United States. While data differs depending on the source, somewhere between one in three and one in four practicing physicians are over the age of 65, with this percentage rising even higher in many specialties. With this aging comes concerns that the cognitive and/or physical dexterity skills of those physicians may deteriorate over time. The resulting potential injury to public safety cause many healthcare organizations to consider policies addressing the aging of their physicians. However, there are many issues that must be considered in order to have a late career medical practitioner policy that can withstand scrutiny by state and federal courts and agencies.
On February 23, 2019, Modern Healthcare reported key takeaways from its “CEO Power Panel.” Of the 24 CEOs who completed the survey, only three (12.5 percent) responded that mergers and acquisitions “will be their primary growth strategy in 2019,” down from 25.8 percent of respondents in 2018. CEOs questioned whether organizations achieved any actual value in terms of cost savings or efficiencies when they merged, and cautioned against “getting big for big’s sake.”
The Department of Justice recently reported that the healthcare industry accounted for $2.5 billion of the $2.8 billion dollars it recovered in False Claims Act (FCA) cases in Fiscal Year 2018. Qui tam actions (FCA claims brought by private individuals on behalf of the government) allow whistleblowers to receive up to 30 percent of the amount of recovered when a court finds a healthcare organization submitted false claims for payment. Additionally, individuals engaging in protected activity under the FCA may recover damages under the law’s anti-retaliation provision.
Title IV of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA), created the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB). The NPDB is a national clearinghouse and repository of information on medical malpractice payments and adverse actions taken against licensed healthcare providers. Hospitals and health systems with formal peer review are among the entities required to report to the NPDB.
Executive Summary. Class action attorneys recently filed a first-of-its-kind class action against Edison Home Health Care (“Edison”) and Preferred Home Care of New York (“Preferred”) alleging that the home care agencies used a “captive” insurance company to cheat their home care workers out of millions of Wage Parity Act (“WPA”) dollars. This is the first lawsuit targeting use of captive insurance companies to provide health benefits and was brought under ERISA, the federal statute governing employee benefit plans, as well as the WPA. The suit claims that the agencies used a captive insurer to avoid paying their Medicaid funded home care workers the full $4.09 WPA package of additional wages and benefits (“WPA Package”) and, instead, returned WPA-credited benefit dollars to the agencies and their owners. No prior lawsuit has targeted use of captive insurance companies in this way, and the progress of this lawsuit will be closely watched.
What should (or can) you do if a locally recognized “Best Physician” throws a scalpel in the direction of a nurse during surgery? What are a CMO and CNO’s obligations to investigate when he/she learns there is a “situation” between a doctor and a nurse? How do you balance patient safety and compliance with anti-discrimination laws when the medical staff revokes an impaired physician’s privileges?