Little Health Law Blog
As the opioid epidemic continues to cause death and create economic hardships within the nation, criminal prosecutors and law enforcement agents have increased their focus on prosecuting and pursuing severe penalties against doctors, pharmacists, nurses and other healthcare providers as a deterrent for providers who would prescribe opioids in excess. For example, earlier this month, a doctor in Kansas was sentenced to life in prison after distributing prescription drugs that caused the death of his patient. Steven Henson, a physician based in Wichita, was convicted of numerous criminal charges after prescribing opioids in amounts that could lead to addiction and economic hardship, after his patient died from overdose. According to the Department of Justice, Henson prescribed maximum-strength opioids in dangerous quantities. Evidence showed that he wrote prescriptions for patients without a medical need and without providing a medical exam. He also post-dated prescriptions and prescribed them in return for cash.
Henson’s case is not unique. In December 2018, physician Phillip Dean of Missouri was sentenced to 40 months in prison and ordered to pay $312,377 to Medicare and Medicaid after illegally distributing opioid medications. In Massachusetts, Dr. Richard Miron was charged with involuntary manslaughter, after being found responsible for the death of a patient in 2016.
Legislation controlling self-referrals has created a complex road map that can leave doctors with questions regarding their ability to use business agreements to promote lab work and advanced imaging technology for their patients. For physicians, the rules and regulations of self-referrals for imaging can create headaches and lead to fines.
The Trend: Mandatory Arbitration
The highly anticipated “AseraCare” decision (United States v. GGSNC Admin. Serv. LLC) is still pending before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The court is considering “whether a mere difference of opinion between physicians, without more, is enough to establish falsity under the False Claims Act.” To provide some context, the U.S. District Court evaluated the “falsity” element of the False Claims Act in the context of a hospice provider’s “clinical judgment” that a person meets the standard to be eligible for the Medicare Hospice Benefit. The requirement is that a patient be eligible for Medicare Part A and be “Terminally Ill” as defined by the regulation. “Terminally Ill” requires that the hospice Medical Director make a determination that the prognosis of the patient indicates a life expectancy of 6 months or less. So the issue is whether or not the “battle of expert opinion,” without some additional element, is enough to establish that a patient is not terminally ill rendering the subsequent Medicare reimbursement submissions false or fraudulent.
Of the “fraud and abuse” laws, the three decades old Ethics in Patient Referrals Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn, dubbed “Stark Law” after Congressmen Pete Stark who sponsored it, can often be the most challenging to properly interpret and apply, easily leading to head scratching. The law as originally enacted was simple in concept: to remove any financial motivation for doctors to send their patients for unnecessary testing that could raise health care costs and/or result in bad health care. Now often subject to much criticism and even calls for repeal, Stark Law’s is often viewed as confusing, which is ironic because Congressman Stark intended for the law to create “bright line” tests that would provide clear guidance to physicians about what self-referral arrangements are unlawful. Instead, the evolution of the law over the years, including implementing regulations, advisory opinions and court cases have rendered proper interpretation and application of the law debatable and unpredictable in some circumstances.
Earlier this month, Doximity released a new study that provides a national review of physician compensation information and job trends, as the strong trend of physician employment by hospital systems continues. 
All good things must end. Every employment relationship will end sooner or later, one way or the other. While it is obviously important that parties to an agreement convey on the front end of the relationship positive feelings, the exit strategy should never be disregarded in one’s planning or evaluation of contractual terms. Life happens. Things can change one’s desire or ability to be in a deal, a contract, or an employment relationship. Therefore, while perhaps it may feel counterintuitive to dwell on how to end a relationship just as you are forming it, the termination provisions are very important and, sometimes, critical.
Virtually every week, our business and healthcare law firm is engaged to provide advice and assistance concerning a physician employment agreement, either as counsel to the physician or for an employer/hospital or medical practice. “Restrictive covenants,” including non-competition agreements, are desired by the majority of employers and therefore included in their proposed form of employment agreement. Physicians most often prefer, however, if they had their druthers, not to be restricted in their ability to work following the expiration or termination of a job. Hence this section of the proposed employment agreement, particularly those with more broad and onerous non-compete provisions, can be the source of tension on the front end of the employment relationship. Restrictive covenants also show up in a variety of other contractual arrangements, including medical practice ownership agreements (e.g., shareholder agreements, operating agreements), joint venture contracts, and medical director agreements.