Photo of Rick Rifenbark

Rick Rifenbark

Subscribe to Rick Rifenbark's Posts

Richard (Rick) Rifenbark is a partner in the Corporate Practice Group in the firm's Century City office. He is also a member of the firm’s Healthcare team.

Contact:Read more about Rick Rifenbark

Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) in 2021 with the aim of enhancing transparency in entity structures and ownership as well as combating terrorism, money laundering, and other forms of corporate misconduct. This sweeping new rule is designed to cast a wide net over entities that, except in the case of taxes, do not regularly report to federal agencies (i.e., non-publicly traded entities), regardless of the degree to which they are already regulated at the state level. This post specifically speaks to medical groups and management services organizations (“MSOs”) that now need to navigate the new CTA requirements and account for their complex contractual relationships (e.g., management services agreements, equity restriction or succession agreements). For additional information on a particular topic, links to helpful resources have been provided in the footnotes.Continue Reading The Corporate Transparency Act: A Reporting Guide for Medical Groups and MSOs

On December 28, 2023, the Office of Inspector General (the “OIG”) issued a favorable Advisory Opinion (No. 23-15) (the “Opinion”) to a consulting vendor (the “Requestor”) that wanted to provide up to $75 in gift cards to physician practices in exchange for referring the Requestor’s practice optimization services (e.g., workflow and performance assessment, data analytics, and certain Medicare eligibility and performance assistance). Among other things, the Requestor: (i) did not itself provide any services that were eligible for reimbursement under any Federal healthcare program to any of its clients, (ii) did not have an ownership or investment interest in any entity that provided items or services paid for by any Federal healthcare program, and (iii) received compensation from the physician practices that did not vary based on whether the physician practices received a greater or lesser reimbursement from Medicare based on the Requestor’s services. The Opinion concluded that this proposed arrangement would not generate prohibited remuneration under Section 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act (the “Act”), also known as the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“Anti-Kickback Statute”), and thus OIG would not impose administrative sanctions under Section 1128A(a)(7) (exclusion) or Section 1128(b)(7) (civil monetary penalty) of the Act on the Requestor. As always, the Opinion stipulated that it may only be relied on by the Requestor on the specific facts presented to OIG, and that certain state and federal laws may continue to limit similar arrangements. However, the Opinion indicates that the tight scope of potential marketing options for physician practice vendors could expand a bit for those who are similarly situated to the Requestor.Continue Reading New Marketing Possibilities for Vendors Contracted with Medicare Providers and Suppliers Following OIG’s Favorable Advisory Opinion on Limited Referral Bonuses

Introduction: Defining Interprofessional Consultation

In a January 5, 2023, letter to state health officials, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) clarified a Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (“CHIP”) policy on the coverage and payment of interprofessional consultations (the “Guidance”). An interprofessional consultation occurs when the patient’s treating physician requests the opinion and/or advice from a specialist practitioner without the patient making face-to-face contact with the specialist practitioner. The new CMS guidance clarifies that it is permissible for Medicaid and CHIP to provide reimbursement for an interprofessional consultation when the consultation is for the direct benefit of the patient without the patient’s presence.[1]Continue Reading CMS Issues Interprofessional Consultation Guidance

In a recent blog post, we described general registration and application considerations for employers seeking to enroll in California’s new Hospital and Skilled Nursing Facility COVID-19 Retention Payment Program (the “WRP”) on behalf of their employees, including details on eligibility, qualifying periods, and defined legal terms. Readers have asked how to analyze whether physicians and other employees who perform at least some “management” or “supervisory” duties qualify for the WRP, which we address here.Continue Reading Who is a Manager or Supervisor Excluded from California’s Healthcare Worker Retention Payment Program?