Contact Us
Categories
- Medical Spas
- medical billing
- No Surprises Act
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Workplace health
- Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act
- Code Enforcement
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employment Law
- FFCRA
- CARES Act
- Nursing Home Reform Act
- COVID-19
- SB 150
- Acute Care Beds
- Clinical Support
- Coronavirus
- Emergency Medical Services
- Emergency Preparedness
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- KBML
- medication assisted therapy
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Legislative Developments
- Corporate
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Employee Contracts
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Opioid Epidemic
- Sexual Harassment
- Health Resource and Services Administration
- Litigation
- Medical Malpractice
- House Bill 333
- Senate Bill 79
- locum tenens
- Physician Prescribing Authority
- Senate Bill 4
- Chronic Pain Management
- HIPAA
- Prescription Drugs
- "Two Midnights Rule"
- 340B Program
- EHR Systems
- Hospice
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Skilled Nursing Facilities (“SNFs”)
- Uncategorized
- Drug Screening
- Electronic Health Records (“EHR")
- ICD-10
- Mental Health Care
- Primary Care Physicians ("PCPs")
- Urinalysis
- Affordable Insurance Exchanges
- Compliance
- Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- Federally Qualified Health Centers (“FQHCs”)
- Fraud
- Health Care Fraud
- HIPAA Risk Assessment
- HPSA
- KASPER
- Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure
- Kentucky’s Department for Medicaid Services
- Office for Civil Rights ("OCR")
- Office of Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (OIG)
- Pharmacists
- Physician Assistants
- Qui Tam
- Rural Health Centers (“RHCs”)
- Stark Laws
- Telehealth
- Accountable Care Organizations (“ACO”)
- Affordable Care Act
- Alternative Payment Models
- Anti-Kickback Statute
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”)
- Certificate of Need ("CON")
- Charitable Hospitals
- Data Breach
- Electronic Protected Health Information (ePHI)
- False Claims Act
- Fee for Service
- Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act)
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)
- Health Professional Shortage Area ("HPSA")
- Hospitals
- HRSA
- Limited Services Clinics
- Medicaid
- Medical Staff By-Laws
- Medically Underserved Area ("MUA")
- Medicare
- Mid-Level Practitioners
- Part D
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”)
- Rural Health Clinic
- American Telemedicine Association (“ATA”)
- Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)
- Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (“HEAT”)
- Hydrocodone
- Kentucky Board of Nursing
- Kentucky Pharmacists Association
- Qualified Health Care Centers (“FQHC”)
- Telemedicine
- Webinar
- Agreed Order
- APRNs
- Chain and Organization System (“PECOS”)
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California
- Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA")
- Hinchy v. Walgreen Co.
- Jimmo v. Sebelius
- Maintenance Standard
- Overpayments
- United States ex. Rel. Kane v. Continuum Health Partners
- Vitas Innovative Hospice Care
- 2014 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (“PFS”)
- 501(c)(3)
- All-Payer Claims Database ("APCD")
- Chiropractic services
- Chronic Care Management
- Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”)
- Compliance Officer
- Compounding
- CPR
- Drug Quality and Security Act (“DQSA”)
- Emergency Rooms
- Enrollment
- Essential Health Benefits
- House Bill 3204
- ICD-9
- Kentucky Senate Bill 7
- Medicare Part D
- Minors
- New England Compounding Center ("NECC")
- Ophthalmological services
- Outsourcing facility
- Physician Compare website
- Re-validation
- Sustainable Growth Rate (“SGR”)
- Texting
- Affinity Health Plan
- Appeal
- Arbitration
- Cadillac tax
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Community health needs assessment (“CHNA”)
- Condition of Participation ("CoP")
- Denied Claims
- Department of Medicaid Services’ (“DMS”)
- Dispenser
- Employer Mandate
- Federation of State Medical Boards (“FSMB”)
- Food and Drug Administratio
- Form 4720
- Grace Period
- Health Professional Shortage Areas (“HPSA”)
- HealthCare.gov
- Home Health Prospective Payment System
- Home Medical Equipment Providers
- Hospitalists
- Individual mandate
- Inpatient Care
- Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange
- Kentucky Medical Practice Act
- Kindred v. Cherolis
- Kynect
- Licensure Requirements
- LLC v. Sutter
- Long-term care communities
- Long-Term Care Providers ("LTC")
- Low-utilization payment adjustment ("LUPA")
- Medicare Shared Saving Program (MSSP)
- Mobile medical applications ("apps")
- Model Policy for the Appropriate Use of Social Media and Social Networking in Medical Practice (“Model Policy”)
- National Drug Code ("NDC")
- National Institutes of Health
- Network provider agreement
- Nonprofit hospitals
- Nonroutine medical supplies conversion factor (“NRS”)
- Payors
- Personal Service Entities
- Physician Payments
- Physician Recruitment
- Physician shortages
- Ping v. Beverly Enterprises
- Power of Attorney ("POA")
- Prescriber
- Qualified Health Plan ("QHP")
- Quality reporting
- Residency Programs
- Social Media
- Spousal coverage
- State Health Plan
- Upcoding
- UPS
- “Superuser”
- "Plan of Correction"
- Advanced Practice Registered Nurses
- Audit
- Autism/ASD
- Business Associate Agreements
- Business Associates
- Call Coverage
- Daycare centers
- Decertification
- Division of Regulated Child Care
- Doe v. Guthrie Clinic
- EHR vendor
- Employer Group Health Plans
- ERISA
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- False Billings
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Group Purchasing Organizations ("GPO")
- Health Reform
- House Bill 104
- Intermediate Sanctions Agreement
- Kentucky House Bill 159
- Kentucky House Bill 217
- Licensed practical nurses (LPN)
- List of Excluded Individuals and Entities
- Meaningful use incentives
- Medicare Administrative Coordinators
- Medicare Benefit Policy Manual
- Nurse practitioners (NP)
- Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”)
- Part A
- Part B
- Patient Autonomy
- Patient Privacy
- Personal Health Information
- Provider Self Disclosure Protocol
- Registered nurses (RN)
- Self-Disclosure Protocol
- Senate Bill 39
- Senate Finance Committee Report
- State Medicaid Expansion
- Statement of Deficiency ("SOD")
- Trade Association Group Coverage
- Abuse and Waste
- Center for Disease Control
- Compliance Programs
- Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan programs (“CO-OPS”)
- Critical Access Hospitals (“CAHs”)
- Essential Health Benefits (“EHBs”)
- Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS)
- Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services
- Kentucky Health Care Co-Op
- Kentucky Health Cooperative (“KYHC”)
- Kentucky Primary Care Centers (“PCCs”)
- Managed Care Organizations (“MCOs”)
- Medicare Audit Improvement Act of 2012
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- Recovery Audit Contractors (“RAC”)
- Small Business Health Options Program (“SHOP”)
- Sunshine Act
- Employee Agreement
- Free Conference Committee Report
- Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program
- House Bill 1
- House Bill 4
- Kentucky “Pill Mill Bill”
- Pain Management Facilities
- Health Care Law
- Health Insurance
- Healthcare Regulation
McBrayer Blogs
Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter: Don’t Forget to Read the Arbitration Provision
On June 10, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision confirming that payment disputes between a payor and its network providers may be resolved through group arbitration if allowed by the arbitrator, even if the use of class procedures is not expressly provided for in the agreement.
In Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter, John Sutter, a physician who provided medical services under a contract with Oxford Health Plans, sued Oxford on behalf of himself and a proposed class of other doctors alleging violation of the Oxford provider agreement and New Jersey state laws. The Oxford provider agreement contained a binding arbitration provision so Oxford moved to compel arbitration of Sutter’s claims and the District Court agreed.
At arbitration, the arbitrator decided that the Oxford provider agreement permitted class procedures to resolve the parties’ payment dispute. Oxford appealed the arbitrator’s decision under Federal Arbitration Act §10(a)(4) because the provider agreement did not specifically authorize the use of class procedures. Oxford argued that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously held that parties to a binding arbitration provision cannot be subject to class arbitration unless authorized in the agreement. See, Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) (the parties stipulated that the agreement did not speak to group arbitration and the question was not presented to an arbitrator).
The Supreme Court found that whether the Oxford provider agreement’s arbitration provision expressly permits class arbitration is irrelevant because the arbitrator’s decision is binding on the parties. In arriving at its decision, the Court held that the sole question under the Federal Arbitration Act §10(a)(4) is “whether the arbitrator interpreted the parties contract, not whether he got its meaning right or wrong.” Federal Arbitration Act §10(a)(4) “permits courts to vacate an arbitral decision only when the arbitrator strayed from his delegated task of interpreting a contract, not when he performed that task poorly.” (emphasis added).
The moral of the story from Oxford is twofold. First, Oxford is a reminder that the decision of an arbitrator pursuant to a binding arbitration provision is unreviewable, even if it is wrong. Second, payors and network providers should carefully read, understand and negotiate (if necessary) the dispute resolution provisions of a network provider agreement to ensure they reflect the parties’ shared intent.
After Oxford, network providers should be aware that payors may revise arbitration provisions to expressly prohibit class procedures, but may be willing to negotiate. Arbitration provisions that permit the use of class procedures may be especially beneficial for smaller providers who lack the resources to fully pursue an individual payment dispute with a payor.
If you are a payor or a provider and have a question about a contract or payment issue, contact the health care attorneys at McBrayer.
Services may be performed by others.
This article does not constitute legal advice.