Posts Tagged ‘wisconsin attorney’

Anti-kickback Statutes – Free Transportation Services to Patients – Safe Harbor Regulations

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2017

Free Patient Transportation Services

Factors to Consider When the Transportation Safe Harbor is Not Satisfied

Health Attorney Wisconsin Health LawHere are some factors pulled from various OIG Advisory Opinions on free patient transportation.  The safe harbors for patient transportation should also be consulted, but these factors may be relevant in cases where not all safe harbor elements can be met.  Some factors identify criteria that makes an arrangement suspect.

  • Offering out of state patients free transportation to receive services.
  • Compensating drivers of vans or other vehicles on a per patient basis for patients that are brought to the facility.
  • Offering free luxury transportation.
  • Offering free transportation to the patients of physicians or other referral sources in order to induce them to refer to the facility.
  • Free ambulance services without making any determination of financial need.
  • Offering free transportation to nursing home residents to a facility,especially for services of questionable necessity.
  • The costs of the free transportation must be borne by the facility and should not be passed on to any Federal health care program.
  • Higher levels of advertising and marketing of the transportation service will raise more concern.
  • Transportation from one provider to another raise a higher level of concern than transportation directly to the facility. In other words, where the transportation is from the place of business of a potential referral source (i.e. physician or other health care provider) the fraud and abuse risk is higher.
  • Whether there are other methods of affordable transportation in the area. If affordable transportation options are not readily available, the arrangement will raise less concern.
  • Whether the services are offered and/or marketed outside of the facilities normal service area. The OIG looks with disfavor on “leap-frog” arrangements that induce patients to bypass other closer providers due to the free or low cost transportation arrangement.
  • The OIG also raised general concerns about the provider who uses free transportation to gain access to patients, potentially for unnecessary or questionable services.

Wisconsin Home Health Quality Regulations – HHA Attorney Wisconsin

Tuesday, February 14th, 2017

Wisconsin Home Health Quality Reporting Requirements-  OASIS Data Item Set 

The reporting of quality data by home health agencies (HHAs) is mandated by Section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v)(II) of the Social Security Act (“the Act”).  This statute requires that ‘‘each home health agency shall submit to the Secretary such data that the Secretary determines are appropriate for the measurement of health care quality. Such data shall be submitted in a form and manner, and at a time, specified by the Secretary for purposes of this clause.’’

OASIS reporting is mandated in the Medicare regulations at 42 C.F.R.§484.250(a), which requires HHAs to submit OASIS assessments and Home Health Care Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey (HH CAHPS) data to meet the quality reporting requirements of section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of the Act.

Home Health Quality Reporting Requirements

Maneuvers and Techniques Prohibited in Community Based Programs and Facilities

Thursday, February 9th, 2017

Wisconsin Prohibited Maneuvers and Techniques in Community Based Programs

Wisconsin Behavioral Health Managing Aggressive Behaviors

Wisconsin Behavioral Health Lawyer

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) as released a memo that specifies maneuvers or techniques that may not be used at any time in community based programs and facilities. DHS deems the prohibited maneuvers or techniques to “present an inherently high risk of serious injury and even death.”  Providers are directed by DHS to immediately discontinue the use of any of the listed maneuvers.  Prohibited maneuvers, techniques, and procedures that may not be used under any circumstances include:

  • Any maneuver or technique that does not give adequate attention and care to protection
    of the head.
  • Any maneuver or technique that places pressure or weight on the chest, lungs, sternum,
    diaphragm, back, or abdomen.
  • Any maneuver or technique that places pressure, weight, or leverage on the neck or throat, on any artery, or on the back of the head or neck, or that otherwise obstructs or restricts the circulation of blood or obstructs an airway, such as straddling or sitting on the torso, or any type of choke hold.
  • Any maneuver or technique that involves pushing into a person’s mouth, nose, or eyes.
  • Any maneuver or technique that utilizes pain to obtain compliance or control, including punching, hitting, hyperextension of joints, or extended use of pressure points.
  • Any maneuver or technique that forcibly takes a person from a standing position to the floor or ground. This includes taking a person from a standing position to a horizontal (prone or supine) position or to a seated position on the floor.
  • Any maneuver or technique that creates a motion causing forcible impact on the person’s head or body, or forcibly pushes an individual against a hard surface.
  • The use of seclusion where the door to the room would remain locked without someone having to remain present to apply some type of constant pressure or control to the locking mechanism.

DHS explains in the memo that the ultimate goal is to replace such interventions with trauma-informed systems and settings, positive behavior supports, and non-coercive intervention strategies. DHS promotes recovery and healing that is consumer-driven, person-centered, trauma-informed, and recovery-based.

In addition to describing measures that are completely prohibited, DHS states that restrictive measures that are not prohibited may only be used in emergency situations in which there is an imminent risk of serious harm to self or others, or as part of an approved plan. Situations in which the person’s behavior was foreseeable based on his or her
history are not considered an emergency.   Even restrictive measures that are not directly prohibited must be avoided whenever possible and may only be used after all other feasible alternatives, including de-escalation techniques, have been exhausted. When necessary, restrictive measures may only be used with the minimum amount of force needed, and for the shortest duration possible, to restore safety.

Facilities should review their policies and practices to assure compliance with the guidelines set forth in the memo. Additional staff training should be conducted to assure compliance with these standards.   Additionally, providers should become familiar with the changing standards of care and best practices focused on building skills and techniques to de-escalate and redirect behaviors that present safety concerns, and work earnestly to promote a trauma-informed culture of care.