• Home
  • News
  • Firms & Lawyers
  • Courts
  • Judges
  • Surveys/lists
  • Columns
  • Verdicts
  • Public Notices
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe

Home > Seeing the Light With the Physician Payment Sunshine Act

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Health Care Law

Seeing the Light With the Physician Payment Sunshine Act

By Karl A. Thallner Jr. and Katie C. Pawlitz Contact All Articles 

The Legal Intelligencer

March 19, 2013

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 
Karl A. Thallner Jr.

Karl A. Thallner Jr.

Katie C. Pawlitz

Katie C. Pawlitz

On February 1, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the long-awaited final rule implementing the physician payment transparency provisions, commonly referred to as the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, in the Obama administration's 2010 health care reform legislation. The Sunshine Act joins the list of significant federal laws addressing potential conflicts of interest in health care, including the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law. With implementation of the Sunshine Act now in sight, stakeholders face the real challenge of complying with, and practicing under the shadow of, the Sunshine Act and its complex and detailed regulations.

The Basics

The Sunshine Act requires "applicable manufacturers" of drugs, devices, biologicals or medical supplies covered under Medicare, Medicaid or CHIP to report annually to the CMS certain payments or other transfers of value to "covered recipients," namely physicians and teaching hospitals. Additionally, applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations (GPOs) must report certain information regarding the ownership or investment interests in them that are held by physicians or their immediate family members. The CMS will make the data submitted publicly available via a website.

Manufacturers and GPOs will be required to report the data for August through December to the CMS by the first reporting deadline of March 31, 2014, and CMS will release the data publicly by September 30, 2014.

The reporting obligations under the Sunshine Act are broad — anything of value provided to a covered recipient must be reported. The Sunshine Act and its regulations do exclude from reporting, however, certain types of payments or transfers of value, including, among others, payments of less than $10, certain educational materials and product samples. The final rule includes guidance on the application of these exclusions.

Any manufacturer or GPO that fails to submit the required information in a timely manner will be subject to a civil money penalty (CMP) of between $1,000 and $10,000 for each payment or other transfer of value not reported, but not to exceed a total of $150,000. Manufacturers and GPOs that knowingly fail to submit the required reports and information are subject to CMPs between $10,000 and $100,000 for each payment or other transfer of value not reported, but not to exceed a total of $1 million.

The Preparation

Now that the Sunshine Act implementation timeline is in place, manufacturers and GPOs must ensure they are able to begin tracking in August and reporting in March 2014. Although not directly subject to its requirements, covered recipients and physician owners and investors also may be indirectly affected by the Sunshine Act.

ManufactureRs/GPOs

Many manufacturers and GPOs have been preparing for implementation on an ongoing basis through a variety of efforts, including the development of internal data collection processes and systems. Nonetheless, now that the specifics of the final rule are known, manufacturers and GPOs will need to take additional action to ensure that they are able to report as required. As companies prepare for implementation, they may consider the following actions:

• Determine which entities within the company qualify as "applicable manufacturers." Under the definition of applicable manufacturer, an entity may qualify either because it manufactures covered products or because it is under common ownership with an entity that manufactures covered products and it provides assistance and support to such entity.

• Determine what types of payments and transfers of value the company will be tracking and reporting. Generally, the Sunshine Act requires manufacturers of covered products to report all payments and transfers of value to a covered recipient, regardless of whether the payment is associated with a covered product or a noncovered product. However, the final rule includes certain limited exclusions to this requirement.

• Update or revise company policies and procedures to reflect the requirements of the final rule under the Sunshine Act. Although many companies have been preparing for implementation, the final rule does offer some additional clarifying guidance that will need to be incorporated into current policies and procedures. Consistent employee training may also be necessary.

A browser or device that allows javascript is required to view this content.

Continue reading

  • 1
  • 2

Next



Subscribe to The Legal Intelligencer

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Find similar content

Firms mentioned

    
  • CMS Cameron McKenna
  • Reed Smith

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • Medicaid
  • Government Printing Office
  • Anti-Kickback Statute
  • CMS
  • Department of Justice
  • Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Key categories

    
  • Labor and Employment Law

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Workplace Bullying: Managing the Organizational Playground
    •      
  2. New District Judge Takes Firm Line on Attorney Conduct
    •      
  3. Bernstein Upholds $78.4 Mil. Verdict in Phila. Med Mal Case
    •      
  4. Third Circuit Rejects NLRB Recess Appointment
    •      
  5. Judges Want Master to Develop Record in Retirement Age Case
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

Taking the Reins of Legal Department Operations

In-House Law: Now in 3-D!

Simpson Helps Yahoo, Tumblr Connect for $1 Billion Deal

Kasowitz Benson Launches in Los Angeles

Contrite Companies Can Win Forgiveness in Bribery Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Plaintiffs Want to See Toyota's 'Crown Jewels'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Collaboration Is Key to Defending Cyberattacks

Stanford Law Builds on Role as Legal Tech Incubator

Prolific ADA Plaintiff Faces Nemesis in Harassment Suit

Ullyot Exit Closes Chapter for Facebook

Rothstein Bankruptcy Trustee Files New Reorganization Plan
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fla. Bar Wants Disbarment for Former Judge
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Appellate Division To Roll Out Electronic Case Filing System

Court Limits Liability for Injury Or Death of One Invited To Help
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Judge Declines to Block Act-of-War Defense in 9/11 Case
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Panel Finds 'Excessive' City Fine for Poaching Antenna From Trash
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Lawsuit Testing Federal Porn Regulation Allowed to Survive

Ex-College QB Can Press Claim Over EA's Video Game
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Law Schools Are Looking Beyond LSATs, Says Mich. Dean

Is Freezing Your Eggs the Solution?

Water Warriors: Local Governments Bring Pollution Suits
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Sanction Reversed; Filing of Sexually Explicit Chat OKd
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Brooks Looks To Political Ally For Criminal Defense

Attorney Fee Hearing in Waffle House Sex Case Heats Up
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Corporate Bribery Case Part Of National Trend
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Continues To Grant Lawyers Fraud Immunity
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media