By Victor L. Moldovan, McGuireWoods, LLP
In many communities in the United States, physicians were responsible for the development and ownership of hospitals. During the Stark law era, the relationship between physicians and hospitals has come under stricter scrutiny. The Stark law is premised on the concept that a physician should not be permitted to refer patients to facilities in which the physician has an ownership interest or other financial relationship. The purpose of the law is to reduce financial incentives paid for by Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs for physicians to overutilize health care services. Significantly, until the adoption of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Stark law had an exception, commonly referred to as the “Whole Hospital Exception,” from the prohibition on referrals by physicians to hospitals in which the physicians had an investment interest. As a result of the exception, physicians were free to own hospitals as long as the ownership interest was in the whole hospital and not just a department, such as surgery or radiology. However, ACA abolished the whole hospital exception for new hospitals and significantly limited the expansion of existing hospitals.
In order to qualify for the whole hospital exception, a physician hospital relationship must meet several requirements The physician must only receive financial benefits from his or her ownership based on his or her pro rata interest in the hospital. For example, if the physician owns 10 percent of the hospital’s stock the physician is authorized to receive only 10 percent of the profits. The physician cannot receive remuneration based on the volume or value of his or her referrals to the hospital. In other words, the physician cannot be paid an amount based on the number of patients he refers to the hospital for inpatient and outpatient services. Even if the physician is responsible for 50 percent of the patients seen by the hospital the physician is only authorized to receive his or her pro rata share of the profits. Again, if the physician owns 10 percent of the hospital’s stock then he or she may only receive 10 percent of the profits even if he or she is responsible for 50 percent of the patients treated at the hospital.
By allowing a physician to receive only a pro rata share of a hospital’s profits based on his or her respective ownership interest in the hospital, rather than on the volume of referrals to the hospital, the incentive for the physician to overutilize the hospital (and drive up the cost to Medicare) was reduced. As a practical matter, most physicians own only a very small percentage of a hospital. At the time the Whole Hospital Exception was adopted, the thinking of the federal government was that ownership by itself was not a significant incentive to refer patients to the hospital.4 In fact, payment by Medicare, Medicaid and other federal government programs is contingent on the services being medically necessary; those programs do not pay for services that are not medically necessary regardless of where they are provided. As a result, before the adoption of the ACA, the federal government apparently believed that the restrictions on ownership by a physician in a hospital did not cause over utilization of services or increase the risk of the unnecessary expenditure of funds by Medicare, Medicaid and other federally funded programs.
The restrictions on expansion also include limits on the number operating rooms, inpatient beds and procedure rooms at physician owned hospitals. The ACA capped these rooms and beds at their March 23, 2010 amount, or their December 31, 2010 amount, if the hospital was not yet enrolled in Medicare as of March 23, 2010. The result is that there will be no new Medicare enrolled physician owned hospitals in the United States and those that exist have restrictions on expansion.
On March 31, 2011, the court held that the Plaintiffs had a valid claim that was ripe for adjudication and they were not required to wait until they were cited by the federal government for non-compliance or for an application for enrollment for a new hospital to be denied before challenging the law. The Court granted, however, the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment on the merits of the case.7 The court basically held that Congress did not act unreasonably by repealing the Whole Hospital Exception for new hospitals, that there was not a taking of property, and that the law was not unconstitutionally vague.
On Friday, May 27, 2011, the Plaintiffs appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Until the Fifth Circuit rules on the Plaintiffs’ appeal, it is too early to say exactly what will happen because the court’s decision could be reversed or modified in a myriad of ways. If the court’s decision is reversed, the repeal of the Whole Hospital Exception will be invalid.
Further, the case brought by the State of Florida and other states challenging the ACA cannot be overlooked.8 In that case, the Northern District of Florida struck down the entire ACA.9 The court wrote:
In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch, and that seems to fit. It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed. There are simply too many moving parts in the Act and too many provisions dependent (directly and indirectly) on the individual mandate and other health insurance provisions — which, as noted, were the chief engines that drove the entire legislative effort — for me to try and dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand alone from the unable- to-stand alone. . . . The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker. . . .
The U.S. Government appealed the Florida decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. If the Eleventh Circuit does not reverse or modify the decision, all provisions of the ACA will be invalid, including the repeal of the Whole Hospital Exception. The result will be that the Whole Hospital Exception as it existed prior to the adoption of the ACA will continue in force and new physician owned hospitals will be allowed to enroll in Medicare.
It should be noted that new bills have been introduced in Congress to address the Whole Hospital Exception.11 Thus, it is possible that regardless of what happens in the courts, the law will be changed by Congress.
Finally, even if Section 6001 is upheld and not repealed legislatively, the existing physician owned hospitals may still undertake a wide variety of business development activities. They can add new services, joint venture for non-hospital based services such as outpatient imaging, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and dialysis. They can also use their existing physical structures to meet new business opportunities as long as they don’t increase the aggregate number of beds, operating rooms or procedure rooms. For example, they are free to convert in-patient beds to operating rooms or procedure rooms to meet patient demand, as long as the total number of beds, operating rooms, and beds does not increase.
The ultimate impact of Section 6001 remains to be seen. The resolution of pending litigation and the legislative efforts may dramatically change the law. Even if the law is not changed, physician owned hospitals can continue to operate and manage their business within the confines of the law.
Victor Moldovan is a Partner in the Heath Care Section of McGuireWoods LLP in Atlanta, Georgia. He represents healthcare providers in state and federal regulatory matters, litigation and transactions. His clients include hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, home health companies, hospice, medical practices and ancillary services. He advises on Medicare, Medicaid and FDA compliance matters, federal and state conditions of participation, licensure, operational issues, quality issues and structures for mergers and acquisitions. He can be reached at email@example.com or 404-443-5708.
©2014 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All rights reserved. Bloomberg Law Reports ® is a registered trademark and service mark of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
To view additional stories from Bloomberg Law® request a demo now