Cleveland Clinic Health System Obligated Group - FMSbonds.com
Cleveland Clinic Health System Obligated Group - FMSbonds.com Cleveland Clinic Health System Obligated Group - FMSbonds.com
to amend the Civil False Claims Act in light of recent case rulings that its sponsors believe have led to a narrowedinterpretation of the existing Civil False Claims Act. Senate Bill 2041, if enacted as is, would greatly expandpotential liability under the Civil False Claims Act and could effectively eliminate several longstanding defensesintended to protect against speculative lawsuits. In particular, Senate Bill 2041, among other changes, eliminates thepresentment requirement as a defense to a false claim, eliminates the “public disclosure bar” (which currentlyprohibits a qui tam relator from bringing a complaint that is based on information already available to the public) asa jurisdictional defense to qui tam suits, extends the statute of limitations to ten years in all cases, and generallyexpands liability for false claims. A house companion bill, House Bill 4854, largely tracks Senate Bill 2041 with afew differences. The effect of such legislation, if enacted, cannot be determined at this time.Health Plans and Managed Care. Most private health insurance coverage is provided by various types of“managed care” plans, including health maintenance organizations (“HMOs”) and preferred provider organizations(“PPOs”), that generally use discounts and other economic incentives to reduce or limit the cost and utilization ofhealth care services. Medicare and Medicaid also purchase hospital care using managed care options. Payments tohospitals from managed care plans typically are lower than those received from traditional indemnity or commercialinsurers.For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, managed care (other than Medicare and Medicaid managedcare) accounted for approximately 58% of the net patient service revenue of the Obligated Group.Many HMOs and PPOs currently pay providers on a negotiated fee-for-service basis or, for institutionalcare, on a fixed rate per day of care, which, in each case, usually is discounted from the typical charges for the careprovided. As a result, the discounts offered to HMOs and PPOs may result in payment to a provider that is less thanits actual cost. Additionally, the volume of patients directed to a provider may vary significantly from projections,and/or changes in the utilization may be dramatic and unexpected, thus jeopardizing the provider’s ability to managethis component of revenue and cost.Some HMOs employ a “capitation” payment method under which hospitals are paid a predeterminedperiodic rate for each enrollee in the HMO who is “assigned” or otherwise directed to receive care at a particularhospital. The hospital may assume financial risk for the cost and scope of institutional care given. If payment isinsufficient to meet the hospital’s actual costs of care, or if utilization by such enrollees materially exceedsprojections, the financial condition of the hospital could erode rapidly and significantly.Often, HMO contracts are enforceable for a stated term, regardless of hospital losses and may requirehospitals to care for enrollees for a certain time period, regardless of whether the HMO is able to pay the hospital.Hospitals also from time to time have disputes with managed care payors concerning payment and contractinterpretation issues.Failure to maintain contracts could have the effect of reducing the market share and net patient servicesrevenues of the Obligated Group. Conversely, participation may result in lower net income if the Obligated Groupare unable to adequately contain their costs. Thus, managed care poses a significant business risk (and opportunity)that hospitals face.The growth of alternative delivery systems such as managed care organizations can have a negative impacton hospitals in several ways. First, a hospital generally will not be able to serve the patients of alternative deliverysystems with which it does not contract. Second, a hospital generally is required to substantially reduce its chargesto obtain a contract to service alternative delivery system patients. Third, the alternative delivery systems market isbecoming increasingly competitive and many of the alternative delivery systems with which the Obligated Grouphave contracted may not survive, which may result in the Obligated Group being responsible for providing servicesfor which the Obligated Group may not ultimately be compensated.Exclusions from Medicare or Medicaid ParticipationThe term “exclusion” means that no Medicare or state health care program reimbursement (includingMedicaid and the Maternal and Child Health programs) will be made for any services rendered by the excluded34
party or for any services rendered on the order or under the supervision of an excluded physician. The Secretary ofDHHS is required to exclude from program participation for not less than five years any individual or entity who hasbeen convicted of a criminal offense relating to the delivery of any item or service reimbursed under Medicare or astate health care program; any criminal offense relating to patient neglect or abuse in connection with the delivery ofhealth care; a felony relating to fraud, theft, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary responsibility or other misdemeanorin connection with the delivery of health care services financed or with respect to any act or omission in a healthcare program (other than Medicare or a state health care program) operated by or financed in whole or in part by agovernmental agency; or a felony offense relating to the illegal manufacture, distribution, prescription or dispensingof a controlled substance. The Secretary also has permissive authority to exclude individuals or entities undercertain other circumstances, such as a misdemeanor conviction for fraud in connection with delivery of health careservices or conviction for obstruction of an investigation of a health care violation. The minimum period ofexclusion for certain permissive exclusions is three years.Enforcement ActivityEnforcement activity against health care providers is increasing, and enforcement authorities are adoptingmore aggressive approaches. In the current regulatory climate, it is anticipated that many hospitals and physiciangroups will be subject to investigation, audit or inquiry regarding billing practices or false claims. As with otherhealth care providers, the Obligated Issuers may be the subject of investigations, audits or inquiries by a Medicareintermediary or carrier, the OIG, U.S. Attorney General, Department of Justice Medicaid fraud control unit and/orstate attorney general or other state agency in the future. Because of the complexity of these laws, the instances inwhich an alleged violation may arise to trigger such investigations, audits or inquiries are increasing and could resultin expensive and prolonged enforcement action against the Obligated Issuers.Physician RecruitmentThe Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and OIG have issued various pronouncements that could limitphysician recruiting and retention arrangements. In IRS Revenue Ruling 97-21, the IRS ruled that tax-exempthospitals that provide recruiting and retention incentives to physicians risk loss of tax-exempt status unless theincentives are necessary to remedy a community need and accordingly provide a community benefit; improvementof a charitable hospital’s financial condition does not necessarily constitute such a purpose. The IRS also has issuedguidelines for its agents to follow in conducting audits that emphasize these restrictions, and has established specialaudit teams and procedures to ensure compliance. The OIG has taken the position that any arrangement between afederal healthcare program-certified facility and a physician that is intended to encourage the physician to referpatients may violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute unless a regulatory exception applies. Physician recruitingand retention arrangements may also implicate the Stark Law. While the OIG has promulgated a practitionerrecruitment safe harbor to the Anti-Kickback Statute, it is limited to recruitment in areas that are health professionalshortage areas (“HPSA”). The OIG also has issued an advisory opinion (Opinion No. 01-4) analyzing physicianrecruitment arrangements and providing further insight into the manner in which it would evaluate and apply thephysician recruitment safe harbor. The Stark Law exception for practitioner recruitment is not limited to HPSAs;rather it applies to the recruitment of physicians who are relocating their practices to the geographic area served bythe hospital, if certain requirements are met. The Stark Law also contains an exception pertaining to retentionarrangements allows hospitals, in limited circumstances, to pay incentives to retain a physician in underserved areas.CMS has also issued an advisory opinion (CMS - AO - 2007 – 01) analyzing a physician recruitment arrangementand providing further insight in the manner in which it would evaluate and apply the Stark Law recruitmentexception.Management of the Cleveland Clinic believes that the physician recruitment programs of the ObligatedIssuers are in material compliance with these laws and policies, but no assurance can be given that the IRS or OIGwill not take a contrary position and that such position or any future laws, regulations or policies will not have amaterial adverse impact on the ability of the Obligated Issuers to recruit and retain physicians.Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor ActThe federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) imposes certainrequirements on hospitals and facilities with emergency departments. Generally, EMTALA requires that hospitals35
- Page 1 and 2: NEW ISSUEBOOK ENTRY ONLYSee “RATI
- Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTORY STATE
- Page 5 and 6: OFFERING CIRCULARRelating to$452,34
- Page 7 and 8: Security and Sources of Payment for
- Page 9 and 10: Upon issuance of the Series 2008A B
- Page 11 and 12: (ii) acquisition of magnetic resona
- Page 13 and 14: $147,200,000 Term Bonds Due January
- Page 15 and 16: that the redemption is conditional
- Page 17 and 18: Use of Certain Terms in Other Secti
- Page 19 and 20: County BondsThe Cleveland Clinic an
- Page 21 and 22: The Cleveland Clinic regularly revi
- Page 23 and 24: ESTIMATED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
- Page 25 and 26: DEBT SERVICE COVERAGEThe following
- Page 27 and 28: MedicareGeneralApproximately 29% of
- Page 29 and 30: there is no assurance that the Obli
- Page 31 and 32: Medicare Conditions of Participatio
- Page 33 and 34: fiscal year’s budget that are in
- Page 35 and 36: Federal Regulatory and Contractual
- Page 37: Stark-type statutes have fewer exce
- Page 41 and 42: typically in a position to refer pa
- Page 43 and 44: OhioOhio Certificate of Need Progra
- Page 45 and 46: performance demonstration programs
- Page 47 and 48: manifest injustice would otherwise
- Page 49 and 50: and properties owned or operated by
- Page 51 and 52: plan of reorganization, with one ex
- Page 53 and 54: percentage may be composed wholly o
- Page 55 and 56: The Internal Revenue Service Form 9
- Page 57 and 58: Charity Care, Underinsured and Unin
- Page 59 and 60: • Proposals to eliminate the tax-
- Page 61 and 62: acting in the capacity of underwrit
- Page 63 and 64: Frederick R. Nance, Regional Managi
- Page 65 and 66: FINANCIAL POSITION — D. BALANCE S
- Page 67 and 68: The CommissionBecause the Series 20
- Page 69 and 70: APPENDIX ACLEVELAND CLINIC HEALTH S
- Page 71 and 72: TABLE OF CONTENTSPageINTRODUCTION .
- Page 73 and 74: This Appendix to the Offering Circu
- Page 75 and 76: A. ORIGINS AND FUNDAMENTAL MISSIONT
- Page 77 and 78: C. GOVERNANCE OF THE CLEVELAND CLIN
- Page 79 and 80: Voting Members of theBoard of Trust
- Page 81 and 82: Voting Members of theBoard of Trust
- Page 83 and 84: Principal Operating Officers. The d
- Page 85 and 86: In addition to the broad range of o
- Page 87 and 88: The main campus also includes a com
party or for any services rendered on the order or under the supervision of an excluded physician. The Secretary ofDHHS is required to exclude from program participation for not less than five years any individual or entity who hasbeen convicted of a criminal offense relating to the delivery of any item or service reimbursed under Medicare or astate health care program; any criminal offense relating to patient neglect or abuse in connection with the delivery ofhealth care; a felony relating to fraud, theft, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary responsibility or other misdemeanorin connection with the delivery of health care services financed or with respect to any act or omission in a healthcare program (other than Medicare or a state health care program) operated by or financed in whole or in part by agovernmental agency; or a felony offense relating to the illegal manufacture, distribution, prescription or dispensingof a controlled substance. The Secretary also has permissive authority to exclude individuals or entities undercertain other circumstances, such as a misdemeanor conviction for fraud in connection with delivery of health careservices or conviction for obstruction of an investigation of a health care violation. The minimum period ofexclusion for certain permissive exclusions is three years.Enforcement ActivityEnforcement activity against health care providers is increasing, and enforcement authorities are adoptingmore aggressive approaches. In the current regulatory climate, it is anticipated that many hospitals and physiciangroups will be subject to investigation, audit or inquiry regarding billing practices or false claims. As with otherhealth care providers, the <strong>Obligated</strong> Issuers may be the subject of investigations, audits or inquiries by a Medicareintermediary or carrier, the OIG, U.S. Attorney General, Department of Justice Medicaid fraud control unit and/orstate attorney general or other state agency in the future. Because of the <strong>com</strong>plexity of these laws, the instances inwhich an alleged violation may arise to trigger such investigations, audits or inquiries are increasing and could resultin expensive and prolonged enforcement action against the <strong>Obligated</strong> Issuers.Physician RecruitmentThe Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and OIG have issued various pronouncements that could limitphysician recruiting and retention arrangements. In IRS Revenue Ruling 97-21, the IRS ruled that tax-exempthospitals that provide recruiting and retention incentives to physicians risk loss of tax-exempt status unless theincentives are necessary to remedy a <strong>com</strong>munity need and accordingly provide a <strong>com</strong>munity benefit; improvementof a charitable hospital’s financial condition does not necessarily constitute such a purpose. The IRS also has issuedguidelines for its agents to follow in conducting audits that emphasize these restrictions, and has established specialaudit teams and procedures to ensure <strong>com</strong>pliance. The OIG has taken the position that any arrangement between afederal healthcare program-certified facility and a physician that is intended to encourage the physician to referpatients may violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute unless a regulatory exception applies. Physician recruitingand retention arrangements may also implicate the Stark Law. While the OIG has promulgated a practitionerrecruitment safe harbor to the Anti-Kickback Statute, it is limited to recruitment in areas that are health professionalshortage areas (“HPSA”). The OIG also has issued an advisory opinion (Opinion No. 01-4) analyzing physicianrecruitment arrangements and providing further insight into the manner in which it would evaluate and apply thephysician recruitment safe harbor. The Stark Law exception for practitioner recruitment is not limited to HPSAs;rather it applies to the recruitment of physicians who are relocating their practices to the geographic area served bythe hospital, if certain requirements are met. The Stark Law also contains an exception pertaining to retentionarrangements allows hospitals, in limited circumstances, to pay incentives to retain a physician in underserved areas.CMS has also issued an advisory opinion (CMS - AO - 2007 – 01) analyzing a physician recruitment arrangementand providing further insight in the manner in which it would evaluate and apply the Stark Law recruitmentexception.Management of the <strong>Cleveland</strong> <strong>Clinic</strong> believes that the physician recruitment programs of the <strong>Obligated</strong>Issuers are in material <strong>com</strong>pliance with these laws and policies, but no assurance can be given that the IRS or OIGwill not take a contrary position and that such position or any future laws, regulations or policies will not have amaterial adverse impact on the ability of the <strong>Obligated</strong> Issuers to recruit and retain physicians.Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor ActThe federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) imposes certainrequirements on hospitals and facilities with emergency departments. Generally, EMTALA requires that hospitals35