Upcoming Wolters Kluwer webinar covering expanded telehealth regulations during COVID-19

In response to COVID-19, there have been many recent state and federal changes affecting coverage and reimbursement of telehealth, including the CARES Act, recent regulatory guidance from CMS, state law waivers, and more.
Join Jeremy Sherer and Andrea Frey from Hooper, Lundy & Bookman as they examine the ongoing expansion by federal and state governments of telehealth to address the pandemic. Understand how clients and providers can take advantage of these changes, and the legal and business considerations to keep in mind when implementing telehealth programs, including consent, privacy, fraud and abuse, and licensure.
The webinar will take place on Thursday, April 23, 2020, at 1:00 PM EDT. Register now.

EMTALA claim for failure to provide medical screening dismissed, claim for failure to stabilize medical condition proceeds

Medical screening claims under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) must assert a failure to screen or improper screening, a district court in Missouri held, granting in part and denying in mart a hospital’s motion to dismiss EMTALA claims. The case was allowed to proceed on the patient’s claim for failure to stabilize her medical condition in violation of EMTALA. The patient’s claims for failure to provide appropriate medical screening in violation of EMTALA and medical malpractice were dismissed (Pennington-Thurman v. Christian Hospital Northeast, October 22, 2019, Cohen, P.).

Procedural history

A patient arrived at the hospital’s emergency department with severe leg cramps, received narcotic pain medication, vomited, and objected to being discharged because she felt ill. The patient was nonetheless discharged and left in the wheelchair in the waiting room. The patient filed a complaint against the hospital and its physician seeking monetary relief for alleged violations of the EMTALA (42 U.S.C. §1395dd) and claims of medical malpractice. The patient claimed the hospital violated EMTALA by failing to: (1) provide appropriate medical screening because they believed the patient lacked health insurance; and (2) stabilize the patient prior to discharge.

EMTALA claims

The hospital moved for dismissal of the patient’s EMTALA claims because the patient failed to plead factual allegations suggesting: (1) she received no screening; (2) she received improper screening for a discriminatory purpose; (3) she received screening that was different from other patients with charley-horse cramps; and (4) she had an emergent condition that the hospital failed to stabilize.

Failure to screen

The hospital argued that the patient’s complaint failed to state a claim for any of the three categories of failure to screen: (1) failure to screen at all; (2) improper screening of patients for a discriminatory reason; (3) and screening a patient differently from other patients perceived to have the same condition. The court held that the patient did not allege that the hospital failed to screen her at all since the complaint’s factual allegations established that the hospital’s nursing staff and physician examined her, performed blood work, and treated her pain. Regarding the second and third categories, the court held that the patient did not allege that patients perceived to have insurance and the same medical condition were screened or treated differently than she was. Moreover, the patient failed to state how the hospital allegedly deviated from its normal screening process. Therefore, the court found that she did not plead facts to support a claim either that the hospital screened her differently from other patients with similar conditions or failed to appropriately screen her for a discriminatory reason. As a result, the court dismissed the patient’s claim that the hospital failed to provide appropriate medical screening in violation of EMTALA.

Failure to stabilize

The hospital argued that the patient failed to state a claim under EMTALA for failure to stabilize her medical condition because the complaint established that the patient treated her emergency medical condition with pain medication and resolved her pain prior to discharge. The court declined to find on a motion to dismiss either that: (1) a reaction to medication that includes vomiting is not an emergent medical condition; or (2) a patient who vomits and feels ill while in the emergency department is stabilized and therefore fails to state a claim under EMTALA. Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, the court found that the patient sufficiently alleged that she had an emergent medical condition and the hospital failed to stabilize her condition prior to discharge. As a result, the court denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss the patient’s failure to stabilize claim.

Upcoming Hot Topics in Privacy Webinar hosted by WK

Wolters Kluwer will be hosting an educational webinar Tuesday, October 29 at 1:00 PM EST. The webinar, titled Hot Topics in Privacy — Moving Beyond the Buzz Words and into Action, will be presented by legal experts and shareholders Katie Kenney, Elizabeth Harding, and Iliana Peters from Polsinelli PC. The presenters will cover topics related to HIPAA, GDPR, and the California Consumer Protection Act.

Register now for the webinar. If you miss it, please register for the replay.

CMS revises standards to strengthen oversight of nursing home inspections

As part of CMS’s efforts to improve nursing home resident safety and respond to concerns about inconsistent and untimely inspections, CMS has revised the State Performance Standards System (SPSS) process. The updates to the SPSS aim to enable CMS and State Agencies to address areas of concern more effectively and ultimately improve beneficiary safety and the quality of their care (CMS Letter to State Survey Agency Directors, Admin Info: 20-02-ALL, October 17, 2019).

Structural changes

Included in the changes to the SPSS guidance is a new non-scored tier of measures that includes frequency run-rates and State Performance Indicators. Frequency run-rates measure goals during the fiscal year will be published in the form of a quarterly data extract. These frequency run-rates will be useful to assess mid-year progress made towards meeting Frequency measures during the fiscal year. The State Performance Indicators will help identify underlying causes for inadequate performance in one or more of the scored performance measures.

Domain changes

Within the Frequency Domain, a new process for State Survey Agencies to request permission from CMS to exclude surveys from frequency measure calculations is included in the guidance. It was also updated to include an evaluation of the timely completion of initial certification surveys for the End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) program. Sub-domains were established within the Quality Domain that focus on the standard survey and complaint survey processes, separately. The method of evaluating and the criteria associated with the documentation of deficiencies was revised to reduce subjectivity and burden. Finally, the Enforcement Domain was renamed “Coordination of Provider Noncompliance,” to more accurately reflect the role of State Survey Agencies.

Guidance

The guidance provides instructions to Regional Offices on how to evaluate State Survey Agency performance. Measures should be calculated according to the specific instructions for each measure in the guidance and the scores should be entered into the database within the CMS SharePoint site. The guidance provides a timeline for the evaluation period along with deadlines. For each measure that is scored as “not met,” the State Survey Agency should develop and implement a corrective action plan that will address identified problems. The guidance also provides direction as to how and when the Regional Office should follow-up on progress toward making corrections.