Special report on taxation. IRS issues stricter guidelines for audits of tax-exempt hospitals

The new audit guidelines serve as yet another reminder to tax-exempt hospitals that great care must be taken in structuring and documenting business arrangements with physicians and executives so as to withstand scrutiny by the IRS with regard to exempt status. Since increased census and utilization, and enhancement of the hospital's financial position, are no longer acceptable justifications for such activities as physician recruitment incentives (being suggestive of payment for referrals), it is important that hospitals make an effort to ensure that board minutes, recruitment policies, internal memoranda, and other documentation set forth the reasons--other than the benefits to the institution's bottom line--for having entered into such transactions. Hospitals must establish and document a community need for each physician recruited. Hospitals that actively recruit should be armed with studies evaluating recruiting needs in each clinical area, based on objective criteria, taking into consideration managed care contracting needs and the provision of services to the poor and needy. Finally, hospitals should re-examine all joint ventures and other business relationships with physicians to determine whether such arrangements resulted from arm's length negotiation, involve fair market value for goods and services, and conform, insofar as possible, with the Medicare fraud and abuse safe harbor regulations. Under GCM 39862 and the new guidelines, "aggressive" arrangements may not only create exposure under fraud and abuse laws, but could jeopardize the provider's tax-exempt status as well.     

Death of an exception or much ado about nothing

Hospitals often engage in physician recruitment in an effort to fulfill a community need for a particular medical specialty. In doing so, the hospital must comply with the regulatory requirements of the physician recruitment exception of the Stark law, which over the years has generated a great deal of discussion and perhaps confusion. The publication of the Stark II, Phase II regulations in March 2004 was supposed to provide guidance and clarity, but the new regulations have raised a number of new issues and concerns, particularly regarding the requirements imposed on recruiting arrangements involving group practices. This Article reviews the regulatory requirements of the new physician recruitment exception and addresses several of the concerns that have been raised. Specifically, it examines the new regulatory definition of the "geographic area served by the hospital," the restrictions on income guarantees when the recruited physician joins a group practice, and the prohibition on additional practice restrictions. The author concludes that, while some of these concerns are legitimate, others will have little practical implication and should not hinder the ability of hospitals to engage in reasonable, beneficial recruitment activities.     

The Hermann Hospital closing agreement. Is informal guidance better than no guidance at all?

Creating barriers to communications between the IRS and the tax-exempt health care community is particularly troubling in this time of fundamental change. As exempt hospitals around the country gear up to provide service in a managed care environment, they are becoming involved in new forms of integrated delivery systems for which there is an utter lack of guidance. If the IRS is to formulate effective policy on questions involving the creation of these new health care entities, it needs to be aware of the dynamics and economic incentives at work in a managed care environment and how these incentives and dynamics differ from those in a fee-for-service context. The Hermann Hospital experience seems altogether contrary to these objectives.     

IRS General Counsel Memorandum threatens some hospital-physician joint ventures

To defend against the heightened scrutiny of hospital-physician relations expected from the IRS, hospital management should closely examine any activities now conducted with physicians to determine whether each activity, as organized and operated, furthers the hospital's charitable mission of promoting the health of its community, rather than merely enhancing the financial health of the institution itself. Any arrangements that do not appear to satisfy the principles enunciated in GCM 39862 should be examined to see if they should be restructured or dissolved. In structuring new transactions and examining existing arrangements, the following principles should be kept in mind: 1. Transactions should not be premised upon increased utilization or physician referrals. Enhancing or protecting market share, even for the purpose of preserving an institution's presence in the community, will likely no longer be accepted as a justification for pursuing joint venture arrangements. In justifying such ventures, management must distinguish between benefit to the community and benefit to the institution. 2. Transactions whereby existing services or equipment are "spun off" to a hospital-physician joint venture run a serious risk of enhanced IRS scrutiny. 3. Transactions creating or providing new facilities or services should be more favorably perceived, particularly where participants other than the hospital take an active role in managing the venture. Where the hospital is the sole general partner and merely manages what it would have managed had there been no physician investors, the question of why physicians are involved will likely be of greater concern than it has been in the past.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Medicare and Medicaid programs: hospital outpatient prospective payment; ambulatory surgical center payment; hospital value-based purchasing program; physician self-referral; and patient notification requirements in provider agreements. Final rule with comment period

This final rule with comment period revises the Medicare hospital outpatient prospective payment system (OPPS) for CY 2012 to implement applicable statutory requirements and changes arising from our continuing experience with this system. In this final rule with comment period, we describe the changes to the amounts and factors used to determine the payment rates for Medicare hospital outpatient services paid under the OPPS. In addition, this final rule with comment period updates the revised Medicare ambulatory surgical center (ASC) payment system to implement applicable statutory requirements and changes arising from our continuing experience with this system. In this final rule with comment period, we set forth the relative payment weights and payment amounts for services furnished in ASCs, specific HCPCS codes to which these changes apply, and other ratesetting information for the CY 2012 ASC payment system. We are revising the requirements for the Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting (OQR) Program, adding new requirements for ASC Quality Reporting System, and making additional changes to provisions of the Hospital Inpatient Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program. We also are allowing eligible hospitals and CAHs participating in the Medicare Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program to meet the clinical quality measure reporting requirement of the EHR Incentive Program for payment year 2012 by participating in the 2012 Medicare EHR Incentive Program Electronic Reporting Pilot. Finally, we are making changes to the rules governing the whole hospital and rural provider exceptions to the physician self-referral prohibition for expansion of facility capacity and changes to provider agreement regulations on patient notification requirements.     

Medicare's fiscal problems: an imperative for reform

Many observers have noted that Medicare expenditures will significantly outstrip projected revenues over the course of the next 25 years. This paper examines the economic and demographic assumptions behind forecasts of Medicare hospital insurance and supplementary medical insurance expenditures and revenues and analyzes various strategies for closing the impending gap. It is argued that the present forecasts already assume considerable success in controlling hospital costs and physician payments, making substantial further savings unlikely. Shifting more of the burden onto the elderly through increased cost sharing or higher premiums also will not solve the program's fiscal problems over the long term. The remaining alternative--imposing higher income or payroll taxes on the under-65 population--is also unlikely to be a welcome solution. The authors argue that, eventually, the nation must choose between some form of a two-tier system of benefits or a Canadian-style national health insurance system.     

Caracci and the valuation of exempt organizations

In Caracci v. Commissioner, the Internal Revenue Service faced an important test in its application of Excess Benefit Taxes to disqualified persons of a nonprofit corporation that converted to for-profit status. This Article, written by the taxpayers' valuation expert, details the difficulties in the IRS case and demonstrates the reasons for the Fifth Circuit's reversal of the Tax Court's judgment in favor of the IRS. The author concludes with a number of lessons that taxpayers can take from Caracci.     

Medicare program; hospital direct and indirect graduate medical education policy changes; notice. Final rule; clarification

This notice clarifies the availability of certain physician salary proxy data for purposes of the hospital direct and indirect graduate medical education policy adopted in the "Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System for Long-Term Care Hospitals RY 2008: Annual Payment Rate Updates, and Policy Changes; and Hospital Direct and Indirect Graduate Medical Education Policy Changes" final rule that appeared in the May 11, 2007 Federal Register.     

Privacy Act of 1974; computer matching program--HCFA. Clarification--computer match between HCFA and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)--notice published in the Federal Register on July 5, 1989

Pursuant to the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, Public Law 100-503, October 18, 1988, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines on the Conduct of Matching Programs, the IRS published a notice in the Federal Register (54 FR 28149; July 5, 1989) announcing their intention to conduct a match with a number of Federal and State agencies including HCFA. These matches, in accordance with various provisions of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986, provide these agencies with tax information from IRS records to assist them in administering the programs and activities as described. The match with HCFA is pursuant to IRC 6103(1)(7). The IRS is required, upon written request, to disclose current information from returns with respect to unearned income to any Federal, State, or local agency administering certain federally approved programs to provide, among other things, medical assistance. HCFA is publishing this notice to ensure that the public is aware that it is participating in this match to verify Medicaid eligibility. The HHS Data Integrity Board has approved an Agreement between HCFA and the IRS on February 8, 1990, as required by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988.     

Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital: capping medical practice reform in Illinois

On February 4, 2010 the Illinois Supreme Court struck down Illinois' medical practice reform bill, P.A. 94-677, when it decided Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital. Although the court only considered the unconstitutionality of the cap on non-economic damages contained in that bill, an inseverability provision resulted in the invalidation of all of its provisions. The end result of the Lebron decision extends much further than the striking of the cap on non-economic damages. It affects such areas as medical liability insurance law, physician discipline, public disclosure of information, the admissibility of physician statements into evidence, and expert witness standards. The Lebron holding has raised a significant obstacle to the implementation of a wide range of legislative measures intended to improve both the delivery and quality of healthcare services in Illinois. This article explains the impact of Lebron in these collateral, but important, areas of the law.     

Making sense of referral fee statutes

State and federal prohibitions of referral fees have long plagued the health care sector because their broadly worded provisions threaten established and socially valuable business arrangements. Congress has recently instructed the Department of Health and Human Services to issue regulations that clarify the scope of the most threatening of these prohibitions, the Medicare and Medicaid felony referral fee statute. This article examines three possible analytical models for imposing a limiting construction on referral fee statutes by testing the models against three beneficial practices that the statute jeopardizes: physician recruitment, fee discounting, and efficiency bonuses. The article recommends primary reliance on an earned/unearned analysis that detects a prohibited referral fee by asking whether the fee is fully earned by legitimate, nonreferral services.     

Special report on taxation. New IRS revenue procedure clarifies tax classification of limited liability companies

Although its rules are complex, the publication of Revenue Procedure 95-10 will substantially facilitate the use of LLCs in those states with statutes that permit significant flexibility in the structuring of LLCs. Previously, the only way to assure that LLCs in those states would be classified as partnerships for income tax purposes was to obtain a private letter ruling from the IRS, often resulting in lengthy delays. The new revenue procedure should provide sufficient guidance in the vast majority of cases to allow tax counsel to determine the appropriate treatment for tax purposes without having to seek an IRS private letter ruling.     

Federal tax-exemption requirements for joint ventures between nonprofit hospital providers and for-profit entities: form over substance?

This article discusses the IRS rule on hospital joint ventures and related legal developments. The central thesis is that the IRS's emphasis on operational control is misplaced from both a legal and a policy perspective, and reflects a decidedly strong preference for the form of a joint venture's governance over the substance of its charitable and community service activities. More specifically, the article challenges the IRS position that the rule is a corollary of existing tax law principles. Additionally, social science research is presented to demonstrate that the rule is not likely to promote, and may in fact undermine, United States health policy objectives.     

Like bringing a knife to a gunfight: Why IRC Section 2036 is not the right weapon to combat abusive family limited partnerships

Family Limited Partnerships (“FLPs”), which were once a great estate planning technique, have now become victim to Section 2036 assertions made by the IRS. Over the years, the IRS has struggled to find a means to combat abusive FLPs until the courts began to embrace Section 2036 as a weapon for them to use. Different courts, however, have maintained different rules and have now subjected both abusive and non-abusive FLPs to inclusion of their assets into their gross estates. This has shed light onto the main issue, that is, that Section 2036 is not the appropriate tool to combat abusive FLPs.     

HIPAA Mental Health Parity Act--IRS. Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the IRS is issuing temporary regulations relating to mental health parity requirements imposed on group health plans. These requirements were added to the Internal Revenue Code by section 1532 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The IRS is issuing the temporary regulations at the same time that the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor and the Health Care Financing Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are issuing substantially similar interim final regulations relating to mental health parity requirements added by the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Public Health Service Act. The temporary regulations provide guidance to employers and group health plans relating to the new mental health parity requirements. The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations.     

Al Capone and the Internal Revenue Service: State-sanctioned criminology of organized crime

The story of Al Capone's rise and fall as a Chicago gangster has always depended upon selective dissemination of federal agency records, particularly records of the Internal Revenue Service. Capone history, therefore, is state-sanctioned history. The IRS view of the Capone organization, and of the tax evasion conviction, cannot be easily challenged without access to the corpus of the IRS records. Unfortunately, these records remain sealed from public access, despite the fact that selective releases were made prior to 1977 to journalists, popular authors, film producers and historians. Continued secrecy over the Capone records perpetuates a state-sanctioned criminology of organized crime. Calder v. Internal Revenue Service ¹ attempted without success to unlock the corpus of IRS-Capone records to investigate the state-sanctioned view.     

Special report on health care delivery systems. Hospitals should consider taking an active role in initiating the formation of medical groups for managed care contracting

Hospital promotion of physician organizations as described in this article is a relatively new phenomenon. Approaches that have worked at one institution and time might not be appropriate elsewhere, and in any case will be unlikely to work every time. Nevertheless, the rapid pace of change in the health care industry demands a fresh look at existing modes of operation. Hospitals in immediate need of incremental revenue cannot afford to sit idly by, hoping their physicians will organize themselves sufficiently to bring additional payor contracts and patients to the institution. Taking an active role in helping physicians to develop contracting organizations that also benefit the hospital may well be worth the time and expense involved.     

TBOR2 compliance plans: from rebuttable presumption to enforcement

This Article analyzes the implications and strategies of incorporating the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 ("TBOR2") into tax-exempt healthcare organizations' compliance plans. Beginning with a brief overview of TBOR2, the author examines the presumption of fair market value, how such organizations establish safe harbors, the current Internal Revenue Service (IRS or Service) position regarding enforcement of TBOR2, and the lurking potential for "whistleblowers" to start auditory procedures with an eye toward IRS bounties. Mr. Griffith concludes that the best advice for exempt organizations is to follow the rebuttable presumption procedure for all transactions involving potential disqualified persons, including staff and employed physicians, and seek to fit within the safe harbors for the less routine and larger of those transactions.     

HIPAA Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act--IRS. Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the IRS is issuing temporary regulations relating to minimum hospital length-of-stay requirements imposed on group health plans with respect to mothers and newborns. The hospital length-of-stay requirements were added to the Internal Revenue Code by section 1531 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The IRS is issuing the temporary regulations at the same time that the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor and the Health Care Financing Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are issuing substantially similar interim final regulations relating to hospital length-of-stay requirements added by the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996 to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Public Health Service Act. The temporary regulations provide guidance to employers and group health plans relating to the new hospital length-of-stay requirements. The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations.     

Health insurance portability for group health plans--IRS. Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the IRS is issuing temporary regulations relating to group health plan portability, access, and renewability requirements added to the Internal Revenue Code by section 401 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The IRS is issuing the temporary regulations at the same time that the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor and the Health Care Financing Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are issuing substantially similar interim final regulations relating to the group health plan portability, access, and renewability requirements added by HIPAA to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Public Health Service Act. The temporary regulations provide guidance to employers and group health plans relating to the obligation of plans to comply with new requirements relating to preexisting condition exclusions, discrimination based on health status, access to coverage, and other requirements. The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations.