Comments for HealthReformStat

Comment on Provider reimbursement – reduction in market basket updates by Medicare’s annual (non-physician) productivity adjustments | The Incidental Economist

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 16:02:27 +0000

[...] Jennifer A. Stiller seems to know: The Health Reform statute [...] applies this productivity adjustment by — [...]

Comment on Welcome! by Ismael Ganja

Ismael Ganja — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:24:13 +0000

I would like to thank you for taking the time to post these online quite often. I am sure you have tons of poepel, just like me looking forward to your next posts. I always wonder how on earth can you create such wonderful profound information that one can pick straight off the peg and use right away. Well, I am really waiting to read more of what you have to say.

Comment on Welcome! by Colin Torrecillas

Colin Torrecillas — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:50:56 +0000

Thanks! That was really helpful, I just saved your website url.

Comment on Welcome! by Junior Sables

Junior Sables — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:24:54 +0000

Thanks for the information… I genuinely like this blog. I bookmarked this post and will definitely be making a return visit.

Comment on Stricter supervision of Medicare billing agencies by Jennifer A. Stiller

Jennifer A. Stiller — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:45:51 +0000

Actually, the bill that passed the Senate is called the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” The House version, which passed on November 7, 2009, is called the “Affordable Health Care for America Act.”

There are a number of provisions in the House bill that are not likely to make it into the final product (assuming it passes). According to news reports, the current plan is that the House will pass the Senate version of the bill “as is,” and then both houses of Congress will pass (in one new bill) a limited series of amendments to the Senate bill, using a procedure that allows an up-or-down vote in the Senate without the possibility of a filibuster.

The details of exactly what will be in those amendments is not yet known.

Comment on Stricter supervision of Medicare billing agencies by Paul Jones

Paul Jones — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:05:32 +0000

Thanks Jennifer for the quick reply. The Medical Rights and Reform Act of 2009 has passed the Senate, what is the status of the House version? I take it the provisions of this bill are being morphed into the healthcare reform/proposal set forth last week and not as a seperate bill?

Comment on Stricter supervision of Medicare billing agencies by Jennifer A. Stiller

Jennifer A. Stiller — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:21:40 +0000

The Senate bill passed 60-40 on December 24, 2009. News media reports indicate (as of this morning) that enactment of a statute containing the provisions of the Senate bill, with amendments based on the 11-page proposal put forth by President Obama last week, is looking increasingly likely. For status, stay tuned to your favorite media outlet(s). (There is a link to the President's proposal in a post on the Commentary page of this blog.)

Comment on Stricter supervision of Medicare billing agencies by Paul Jones

Paul Jones — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:14:21 +0000

What is the current status of this legislation? When did it pass the Senate? Thanks for your help.

Comment on Background checks on direct patient access employees in long-term care facilities by Jennifer A. Stiller

Jennifer A. Stiller — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:25:31 +0000

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with your basic argument in 2003, when it ruled that the Pennsylvania Older Adults Protective Services Act’s provision barring employment in various elder-care settings of individuals convicted of a long list of felonies and misdemeanors, was unconstitutional (under the state constitution) as applied to five individuals. Their convictions, at the time the statute was enacted, were for marijuana possession (25+ years previously), stealing $30 (25+ years previously), armed robbery (20+ years previously), “several drug felonies” (10+ years previously), and “possession of drugs” (20+ years previously). Each had served either probation or a prison sentence without incident, and each had subsequently been employed in the care of dependent individuals for at least 7 years.

Despite this ruling, the statute and regulations implementing it remain in effect.

[comment moved for formatting purposes; originally posted 2010/01/09]

Comment on Background checks on direct patient access employees in long-term care facilities by Jennifer A. Stiller

Jennifer A. Stiller — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:23:33 +0000

Healthcare reform has not been enacted, so the specific provisions I have described on this blog are not yet law. However, many states already have similar state laws requiring background checks of long-term care employees. I don’t know if Arizona is one of these states.

In my experience, when a long-term care provider contracts out a function (for example, housekeeping) that may involve direct patient contact, they include specific provisions in the contract that require the other party to comply with the applicable background-check law. It is also common to include special provisions that apply if the contractor fails to live up to these obligations and an adverse event occurs. These can include an indemnification clause, a provision for immediate termination of the contract by the long-term care provider, a liquidated damages clause, etc.