A review of recent developments affecting COBRA rights

Due to the high cost of health care claims and COBRA's status as remedial legislation, COBRA has generated a significant amount of litigation in recent years. While the early COBRA decisions tended to broaden the law in order to provide a remedy to an otherwise uninsured qualified beneficiary, the recent trend in the case law has been to limit the expansion of COBRA rights based on a narrower construction of the statute. Even so, COBRA still represents a legal minefield for employers. As a result, a careful employer will minimize its exposure by monitoring changes in the law and its interpretation and making appropriate modifications to its COBRA documentation and administration. This article discusses some of the more significant recent changes in the law affecting qualified beneficiaries' COBRA rights--and therefore, employers' exposure.     

Issues raised by respiratory therapy arrangements

In large part due to the foregoing issues, Medicare program officials have focused on respiratory therapy as an area with great potential for abuse, and may well introduce significant reforms in the near future. Accordingly, any contractual arrangements for respiratory therapy programs of the type discussed above should be carefully reviewed for compliance with Medicare requirements and for a realistic assessment of the parties' potential exposure to liability under the anti-kickback statute. At a minimum, these agreements should provide for short "without cause" termination provisions, or include a so-called "jeopardy" provision that permits the parties to renegotiate or terminate their contract if significant changes occur in, or if the current arrangement is found or threatened to be found to violate, applicable law.     

As outcomes measurement and management become widespread, providers should beware of legal pitfalls

Until new statutes and court decisions clarify the law applicable to outcomes research, providers will continue to face new questions. In the meantime, paying careful attention to satisfying the requirements of existing laws protecting peer review information will put providers in the best position to minimize their exposure. Providers should review their current outcomes measurement and management systems to ensure that (1) they are structured to take full advantage of the confidentiality protections available under state law, and (2) appropriate access to outcomes data for those who need it is clearly provided for in the relevant documentation.     

The HIV-infected health care provider. Doe v. Attorney General of the United States

Doe demonstrates that once an employer enters into a relationship with an individual and thereafter determines that he or she may be disabled, the employer has the right to ask the individual questions about the possible disability when those questions are relevant to assessing his or her qualifications for continuing on the job. In fact, once a health care provider is on notice that an employee's or physician's disability may render the employee or physician no longer qualified, thereby potentially endangering patients, the provider is required to determine whether the person is qualified for the job. In these sensitive matters, employers must draw a fine line between unreasonably following up on every rumor on the one hand, and on the other hand investigating reliable information when there may indeed be a direct threat to patients.