The Court ruled that California may not compel the clinics with religious concerns to promote or advertise abortion options.
When can the government require speech? While many people think of the recent Supreme Court decision involving family clinics in California as an abortion case, the analysis of the case centers on free speech.
The Court concluded that the state of California was not allowed to require certain crisis pregnancy centers to post a notice describing services available to pregnant women, nor could it require unlicensed clinics to warn women of the center’s unlicensed status.
This raises a question: Will the principles articulated in this case be applied more broadly to other disclosure requirements imposed on healthcare professionals? I haven’t seen any articles raising this question, but this is a topic that merits attention.
The healthcare industry is replete with situations where professionals are required to make statements to patients. For example, under Stark, if a physician group wants to qualify for the in-office ancillary exception, it must provide notice to patients who receive advanced imaging like MRI’s, CT and PET, notifying them of other suppliers that provide the services.
In most states, when a physician has a financial interest in certain ancillary services ranging from surgery centers to durable medical equipment (DME) supplies, the physician is required to disclose the financial relationship to the patient.
At this point, it is not entirely clear whether this opinion will transfer to other disclosure requirements. The opinion contains some reasoning that seems quite weak.
The decision is premised on the conclusion that professional speech is not a separate category of speech and that professionals are entitled to constitutional protection of their speech, but it also notes that professionals can be made to disclose “purely factual and uncontroversial information.” The portion of the analysis that seems most suspect is the assertion that if there is a way that the state could communicate information to the patients, it is improper for the state to require professionals to communicate it.
It is difficult to envision a situation where the only way that information could be communicated is via the professional. If the availability of other means of communication is truly the test, this decision would seem to prohibit nearly all state requirements of disclosure. After all, the state could always advertise, drop leaflets, or rent the Goodyear blimp as a means to communicate. Yet the decision seems to say that the availability of alternate communication means that the state should not force professionals to speak.
Justice Clarence Thomas also addressed another fact: The disclosure requirements only applied to a subset of clinics rather than applying more broadly. That caused the Court to conclude that the government was supporting a particular position. The court often believes that government-imposed speech should be “viewpoint neutral.”
If one were to focus on that portion of the Court’s analysis, there would be less reason to think that the opinion would apply to purely economic disclosures. However, the discussion about the fact that state could have accomplished its goal through other means of communication gives hope to a physician who wishes to challenge notices that the Court may be receptive to the argument.
Program Note:
Listen to David Glaser every Monday on Monitor Mondays, 10-10:30 a.m. EDT.
One of the many management topics at the conference of the Association of Clinical Documentation Integrity Specialists (ACDIS) is having written CDI policies and procedures
Task-based, outcomes measurement versus process improvement generally does not support sustainable long-term results. I was recently asked by a chief financial officer (CFO) what other
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Dr. Ronald Hirsch provides tried-and-true strategies and insight into outpatient in hospital bed stays including determining the applicable definition, who uses it, and when and how to bill for this circumstance, solidified with concrete case examples and expert insight.
Practical solutions for CDM departments to protect your hospital’s revenue.
This webcast teaches hospitals how to comply with CMS price transparency rules and compare their rates with peer hospitals. It covers creating a compliant machine-readable file, comparing negotiated rates, and improving pricing decisions.
The No Surprises Act (NSA) presents a challenge for hospitals and providers who must provide Good Faith Estimates (GFEs) for all schedulable services for self-pay and uninsured patients. Compliance is necessary, but few hospitals have been able to fully comply with the requirements despite being a year into the NSA. This webcast provides an overview of the NSA/GFE policy, its impact, and a step-by-step process to adhere to the requirements and avoid non-compliance penalties.
This expert-guided webcast will showcase tips for providers to ensure appropriate capture of the work performed for a visit. Comprehensive examples will be given that demonstrate documentation gaps and how to educate providers on the documentation necessary to appropriately assign a level of service. You will gain clarification on answers regarding emergency department and urgent care coding circumstances as well as a review of how/when it is appropriate to code for E&M in radiology and more.
Set yourself up for financial and compliance success with expert guidance that breaks down the impactful changes including MS-DRG methodology, surgical hierarchy updates, and many new technology add-on payments (NTAPs). Identify areas of potential challenge ahead of time and master solutions for all 2024 Proposed IPPS changes.
Do you struggle with selecting and appending the correct modifier for your medical claims? Join our must-attend webinar, “Mastering Modifier Usage: Preventing Denials and Ensuring Compliance” to reduce claim denials and improve your reimbursement rates.
Kay Piper reviews the guidance and updates coders and CDISs on important information in the AHA’s fourth quarter 2023 ICD-10-CM/PCS Quarterly Coding Clinic in an easy to access on-demand webcast.
Copyright © 2023 ICD10monitor. Powered by MedLearn Media.
