Posts Tagged commercial

A New Anti-Kickback Law Targets Clinical Lab Marketing Arrangements

A New Anti-Kickback Law Targets Clinical Lab Marketing Arrangements

Some very important and potentially game-changing legislation was recently passed. On Oct. 24, 2018, Congress enacted the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 (or EKRA) – a statute that potentially eliminates legal protections (i.e., “safe harbors”) used by clinical laboratories to market their services. EKRA is part of the “Support for Patients and Communities Act,” comprehensive legislation designed to address the opioid crisis. The Act is clearly aimed at the use/abuse of opioids and the business practices of recovery centers.

EKRA has several potentially game-changing provisions. The first big development is EKRA’s definition of “clinical labs.” The definition of clinical labs used by EKRA is the extremely broad definition contained in 42 USC 263a. Rather than confining the definition of “clinical lab” to toxicology labs, which would satisfy the legislative purpose of the opioid crisis and business practices of recovery centers, the definition covers ALL clinical labs.  Consequently, the reach of the definition of “laboratory” is significantly broader than the purpose of the Support for Patients and Communities Act.

Another important provision of EKRA is the statute is an “all-payor” statute. This means it applies to services that are paid by commercial insurers in addition to services paid by Medicare and Medicaid. Unlike the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) that only applies to federal payors, EKRA applies to commercial payors as well. This is obviously more expansive than the AKS and may require many clinical labs to examine their business practices as they relate to commercial payors if the labs have carved out arrangements specifically to commercial payors.

Finally and most substantively, EKRA prohibits certain business practices that some clinical labs currently use. EKRA defines payment practices that violate the statute to include compensation to employees or contractors that is based on: the number of individuals referred to a particular recovery home, clinical treatment facility or laboratory; the number of tests or procedures performed; or the amount billed to or received from, in part or in whole, the health care benefit program from the individuals referred to a particular recovery home, clinical treatment facility or laboratory.

This change is important because under the AKS, clinical laboratories and other providers are permitted to pay bona fide employees compensation based on revenues generated from their marketing activities. The OIG has even indicated in several Advisory Opinions that providers could pay independently-contracted sales agents percentage-based compensation so long as the arrangement contained adequate safeguards to address so-called “suspect factors.” The prohibition of paying an employee based on some type of formula that takes into account the amount of business generated by the employee should cause laboratories to review their compensation practices because these compensation arrangements used by any clinical laboratory may no longer be protected.

While there is a possibility the definition of clinical lab will be interpreted to apply only to toxicology labs, it is far from certain. Consequently, any/every clinical laboratory needs to be aware of the new legislation and examine its business practices immediately.

Jim Hoover is a partner at Burr & Forman LLP practicing in the Health Care Industry Group. Burr & Forman LLP is an official partner of the Medical Association.

Posted in: Legal Watch

Leave a Comment (0) →

Metro Areas Increasingly Dominated by Single Insurance Companies

Metro Areas Increasingly Dominated by Single Insurance Companies

In an analysis of competition in health insurance markets across the U.S., a study conducted by the American Medical Association found that in 169 of 389 metropolitan areas (43 percent), a single health insurer had at least a 50 percent share of the market. This represents an eight percent increase in such markets over just two years. The finding comes from the newly released 2017 edition of the AMA’s Competition in Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Study of U.S. Markets, which examines market concentration in 2016.

High market concentration tends to lower competition among commercial health insurers. These markets become ripe for the exercise of health insurer market power, which harms patients by raising premiums above competitive levels.

The AMA study presents the most comprehensive data on the degree of competition in health insurance markets across the country, and is intended to help researchers, policymakers and regulators identify markets where consolidation among health insurers may cause anti-competitive harm to patients and the physicians who care for them.

“After years of largely unchallenged consolidation in the health insurance industry, a few recent attempts to consolidate have received closer scrutiny than in the past, including the proposed mergers of Anthem and Cigna, as well as Aetna and Humana,” said AMA President David O. Barbe, M.D. “Previous versions of the AMA study played a key role in efforts to block the proposed mega-mergers by helping federal and state antitrust regulators identify markets where those mergers would cause anti-competitive harm.”

The 2017 edition of AMA’s Competition in Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Study of U.S. Markets offers the largest and most complete picture of competition in health insurance markets for 389 metropolitan areas, as well as all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The study is based on 2016 data on commercial enrollment in fully and self-insured health maintenance organization (HMO), preferred provider organization (PPO), point-of-service (POS), public health exchange and consumer-driven health plans (CDHP).

In addition to assessing competition in the commercial health insurance market at large, the study also separately examines competition for the main plan types, including HMO, PPO, POS, and the exchanges.

The prospect of future consolidation in the health insurance industry should be viewed in the context of the lack of competition that already exists in most health insurance markets. According to the AMA’s latest study:

  • A significant absence of health insurer competition was found in 69 percent of metropolitan areas. These markets are rated “highly concentrated” based on federal guidelines used to assess the degree of competition in a market.
  • In 43 percent (169) of metropolitan areas, a single health insurer had at least a 50 percent share of the commercial health insurance market, compared to 40 percent (156) in 2014.
  • Anthem has a bigger geographic footprint than any other health insurance company in the United States. Anthem was the largest health insurer by market share in 82 of 389 metropolitan areas examined by the AMA. Health Care Service Corp. was second with a market share lead in 42 metropolitan areas, followed by UnitedHealth Group with a market share lead in 26 metropolitan areas.
  • The 10 states with the least competitive commercial health insurance markets were: 1. Alabama, 2. Delaware, 3. Hawaii, 4. South Carolina, 5. Louisiana, 6. Michigan, 7. Kentucky, 8. Vermont, 9. Alaska, and 10. Illinois.
  • The commercial health insurance market in 27 states became more concentrated between 2014 and 2016.
  • The 10 states that experienced the largest increase in market concentration between 2014 and 2016 were: 1. Kentucky, 2. Alaska, 3. South Carolina, 4. Mississippi, 5. South Dakota, 6.Oklahoma, 7. Vermont, 8. Arkansas, 9. Nevada and 10. New Mexico.

Competition in Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Study of U.S. Markets is free to AMA members. The study is also available to non-members. To order a copy, visit the online AMA Store, or call (800) 621-8335 and mention item number OP427117.

Editor’s Note: Credentialed members of the media can obtain a free copy of the AMA’s newest study on competition in the nation’s health insurance industry by contacting AMA Media & Editorial at: (312) 464-4430.

Posted in: Insurance

Leave a Comment (0) →