On November 17, 2010, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS“) published the 2011 Home Health Prospective Payment System (“2011 HH PPS“) final rule. A number of significant issues are addressed in this rule and are effective January 1, 2011. Specifically, the 2011 HH PPS final rule addresses: (1) the rules regarding a change in ownership within 36 months after the effective date of a home health agency’s (“HHA‘s”) initial enrollment or within 36 months following the HHA’s most recent change in majority ownership; (2) new legislative requirements regarding face-to-face encounters with providers related to home health and hospice care; (3) a 3.79 percent reduction to rates for calendar year (“CY“) 2011; and (4) the national standardized 60-day episode rates, the national per-visit rates, the non-routine medical supply (“NRS“) conversion factors, and the low utilization payment amount add-on payments. This Client Alert will provide an overview of these changes.
2011 Home Health Prospective Payment System Final Rule: CMS Clarifies Change of Ownership Provisions and Implements New Legislative Requirements
This office was recently successful in overturning a trial court decision finding that the City had committed an unfair labor practice by failing to maintain the status quo after the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. When a collective bargaining agreement expires, an employer is required to maintain the terms and conditions of employment that […]
For more information please visit www.omwmunilaw.com.
Last week, on November 9, 2010, housekeepers employed by Hyatt Hotels filed complaints with OSHA alleging injuries sustained on the job. The complaints were filed in eight cities across the country, including Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Long Beach, San Antonio, Honolulu and Indianapolis. Similar OSHA actions may occur in Boston, NYC, DC, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Miami, and Orlando with higher concentrations of hotel properties. This is the first time that employees of a single private employer have filed multi-city OSHA complaints, and it appears to be a coordinated effort with organized labor, UNITE HERE.
In recent years, some plaintiffs’ counsel bringing wage-hour claims have have made the strategic decision to bring “hybrid” class actions; that is, actions alleging both federal and state wage-hour claims. These cases can cause logistical nightmares for the courts, and great benefits for plaintiffs, for two primary reasons: (1) the standard for certification of a class is differerent for federal and state claims, and (2) classes in federal claims are “opt in” classes while those for state claims are “opt out” classes. Indeed, in bringing “hybrid” claims, plaintiffs may seek to take advantage of the lower threshold for achieving conditional class certification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), only to later seek to take advantage of the Rule 23 requirement that one must affirmatively “opt out” of the class.
I’m thrilled to report that Goddess Shift: Women Leading for a Change just won the USA Book News “Best Books 2010” award in the Women’s Issues category, and was a finalist in the Anthologies Nonfiction category.
Goddess Shift is an anthology of personal stories written by 43 women in leadership positions about how they have empowered themselves to create change in all walks of life. I am honored to be among the book’s contributors, which include Oprah Winfrey, Suze Orman, Venus & Serena Williams, Angelina Jolie, Madonna, Barbara Walters, Olympia Dukakis, and Maya Angelou.
Co-authored by Kenneth G. Menendez.
Back in May, on the last day of the 2010 session of the Georgia General Assembly, lawmakers passed a bill totally revamping Georgia’s restrictive covenant law (House Bill 173). Unlike most laws, however, this Act was not effective either upon passage by the General Assembly or upon signature by the Governor. Rather, this Act became effective on the day following the 2010 general election, if ratified in the form of an amendment to the Georgia Constitution providing for the enforcement of restrictive covenants in commercial contracts that limit competition.
By: Amy J. Traub
The New York State Department of Labor recently issued a proposed rule which would combine the current wage orders for the restaurant and hotel industries to form a single Minimum Wage Order for the Hospitality Industry. If adopted, the Wage Order would affect requirements related to the minimum wage, tip credits and pooling, customer service charges, allowances, overtime calculations, and other common issues within the restaurant and hotel industries. Additionally, the Wage Order would provide helpful guidance for traditionally ambiguous wage issues such as the handling of service charges and the definition of an employee uniform for purposes of a laundry allowance. Highlights of the Wage Order include:
Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Complaint Dismissed for Failure to Enumerate Basis of Statutory Protection
An in-house patent attorney who protested that his employer knowingly assigned a $50 million value to acquire patents alleged to be worthless could not link his discharge to whistleblower activity protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Affirming dismissal in Vodopia v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V., et al., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals observed that: (1) the complaint clearly centered on the plaintiff’s concern that the patents were invalid, not on the value the company assigned to them; and (2) the complaint did not allege that the $50 million value assigned to those patents was ever reported to the public or to shareholders.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) recently issued several program guidances and announcements related to two federal prescription drug pricing programs: (1) the Section 340B Discount Drug Program (“340B Program”), administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”); and (2) the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (“MDRP”), administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”). We have set forth below an overview of these recent developments.
I. 340B Program: Two Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking: Public Comments Sought
Last April, I summarized in detail a pending bill (House No. H4607) which would amend the current law on noncompetes. (See April 13, 2010 Blog Entry). The bill was considered a compromise bill since there was other legislation filed that sought to make all noncompetes in Massachusetts unenforceable (similar to California). While that bill has not progressed at all, many observers thought that the “compromise bill” would have support, even though it would have made many current agreements unenforceable and would have made it more difficult for employers to protect proprietary information.