No Result
View All Result
SUBSCRIBE | NO FEES, NO PAYWALLS
MANAGE MY SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Compliance

The Hidden Nexus Between Compliance and Reputation

by Craig Garner
December 11, 2014
in Compliance
The Hidden Nexus Between Compliance and Reputation

“It is easier to cope with a bad conscience than with a bad reputation.”  — Friedrich Nietzsche

The past few years have been fraught with litigation for the health care industry, with major companies feeling the sting of compliance in both their reputations and their pocketbooks. In early November, Stryker settled hip implant litigation for more than $1 billion.  In 2012, GlaxoSmithKline paid $3 billion to settle claims of overcharging, kickbacks and other health care transgressions, while, Abbott Laboratories paid $1.5 billion and Johnson & Johnson $1.2 billion, both for alleged violations of law.  Even so, during the first week of November 2014, Stryker traded at its 52-week high, as Abbott and Johnson & Johnson traded near their 52-week high, though GlaxoSmithKline dipped near its 52-week low.  GlaxoSmithKline’s downward trend began before a court in Changsha, China fined the company $500 million after a bribery conviction, coupled with the company’s pending bribery charges in the United Arab Emirates, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Poland.  Sadly, bribery charges are not uncommon in today’s health care market, as can be seen by the events of 2013, when prosecutors in Poland investigated Stryker, and those in 2014, when Abbott settled claims in India.  China also fined Johnson & Johnson in 2014 for bribery charges, with a penalty of just over $3 million.

Not surprisingly, each company listed above has an active corporate integrity agreement with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), with the exception of Stryker, whose recent settlement may result in one.  If nothing else, a corporate integrity agreement with the OIG obligates an entity to bolster, or in some instances create, a robust compliance program, complete with compliance officer and committee, detailed policies and procedures and employee training.  As our nation’s new health care system continues to mature, a health care company can do much worse than enter into an integrity agreement with the OIG, and for this reason the mere existence of one should not impugn a company’s reputation.  On the contrary, acquiescence to the OIG should be a positive factor upon which to assess an institutional moral compass, especially when one considers the consistency with which the OIG unveils its regulatory direction each fiscal year.

With the release of its 2015 Work Plan, the OIG not only reminds health care providers that change is inevitable, it implies that resistance is futile, and an active compliance program would be wise to incorporate most if not all of its annual directive.  For hospitals in particular, acquiescence with the OIG’s Work Plan has a strong reputational nexus, albeit a subtle one at times.  For example, a cursory review of the ways in which hospitals treat patients on the cusp of an inpatient admission may not always allude to corporate compliance and reputation, but in fact this hot topic in health care addresses the core of modern American health care. At the eye of the storm commonly known as Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs), in 2014 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released its “Two-Midnight” rule in an attempt to define and clarify that specific period during a hospital stay when the patient transitions from outpatient to inpatient status. CMS attempted to bring clarity from chaos on this subject by introducing the presumption of inpatient status for an admission with an expected stay lasting two midnights or longer.  While initially setting aside three months for education of this new policy, it took an additional nine months before implementation began on October 1, 2014.  As the confusion over the Two-Midnight rule continues, the OIG has shifted its focus to the impact of these criteria on hospital billing, Medicare payments and beneficiary co-payments. Convinced that hospitals received millions of dollars in over-payments due to short hospital stays improperly billed as inpatient admissions, the Work Plan concludes that when care is expected to last fewer than two midnights, the hospital stay is to be considered outpatient. To make sure its message is clear, the OIG reminds hospitals that this new criteria is “a substantial change in the way hospitals bill for inpatient and outpatient stays.”

On the surface, the link between the OIG’s recent attention to a hospital’s governing body and institutional reputation may not be obvious.  Scrutinized in accreditation by the Joint Commission, among other entities, and certification by Medicare, not to mention the subject of state lawsuits around the nation, a hospital’s medical staff may not need added regulatory oversight.  Nevertheless, in its Work Plan, the OIG notes it will evaluate the hospital process of granting privileges for those institutions participating in Medicare.  Federal law requires Medicare-certified hospitals to organize their medical staff, complete with appropriate bylaws approved by a hospital’s governing body.  This same governing body must protect Medicare by holding health care practitioners accountable for quality of care.  “Robust hospital privileging programs contribute to patient safety,” the Work Plan concludes, echoing the same patient safety topic on which public opinion places such an important emphasis.

Finally, even cutting-edge technology has not escaped the watchful eye of compliance. While understanding the nuances of the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the 2009 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) is no easy feat, health care providers should be mindful of the federal regulations requiring a contingency plan in the event of an emergency or other significant occurrence.  Elements of data backup, disaster recovery and emergency mode operation plans will soon be compared with government and industry recommended practices as the OIG weighs in on a new area of compliance.  While the OIG may hope that this particular item of compliance is never put to the test, those health care institutions that fail to meet such a challenge should a crisis occur will undoubtedly invoke the ire of the court of public opinion.

To be sure, health care entities that commit falsehoods in secret may not suffer the same injury to reputation as the target of a public federal inquiry.  But those health care entities that do good each day thanks to a successful and robust compliance program designed to identify and isolate that which is typically considered bad practice stand a better chance of maintaining a positive public reputation.  Let’s face it: remaining in good standing with the OIG and the public makes good ethical and business sense, especially when it comes to the provision of health care in today’s evolving market.


Tags: Reputation Risk
Previous Post

Conselium Places Evgeniya Vintner as Regional Compliance Manager for Teva Pharmaceuticals

Next Post

Conselium Places Erica Waxman as Director of Compliance for Orthofix International

Craig Garner

Craig Garner

Craig B. Garner is an attorney and health care consultant, specializing in issues surrounding modern American health care and the ways in which it should be managed in its current climate of reform. Craig is also an adjunct professor of law at Pepperdine University School of Law, where he teaches courses on Hospital Law and the Affordable Care Act. Between 2002 and 2011, Craig was the Chief Executive Officer at Coast Plaza Hospital. Craig is also a Fellow Designate with the American College of Healthcare Executives, a Member of the State Bar of California, Business Law Section, Health Law Committee and a Vice Chair of the Healthcare Reform Educational Task Force of the American Health Lawyers Association.

Related Posts

elon musk twitter

Know Your Customer? Know Your Human. Compliance Lessons from Elon Musk’s Promised Assault on Twitterbots

by Peter Viksnins
May 11, 2022

Twitter’s new boss is waging war on bots. How he gets it done may offer lessons for GRC professionals. The...

rams fighting

When Rights Collide: How to Respond — Legally, Ethically and Rationally — to Whistleblower Demands

by Kevin E. Griffith
April 20, 2022

A whistleblower alleges corrupt treatment by your company and demands payment or else they’re heading for the authorities. You aren’t...

nfl logo

5 Lessons From the NFL’s Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

by Peter Glennon
March 2, 2022

The potential to discriminate is not confined to the walls of any business – it can extend to hiring practices...

two business men stuck inside emptying hourglass

If Your Suit Is Stuck, These Best Practices Can Ensure a Strong Partnership with Litigation Counsel

by Kelly Purcaro
February 15, 2022

Litigation can bring any company's legal and compliance functions grinding to a halt. The answer is to bring in external...

Next Post

Conselium Places Erica Waxman as Director of Compliance for Orthofix International

Compliance Job Interview Q&A

Jump to a Topic

AML Anti-Bribery Anti-Corruption Artificial Intelligence (AI) Automation Banking Board of Directors Board Risk Oversight Business Continuity Planning California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Communications Management Corporate Culture COVID-19 Cryptocurrency Culture of Ethics Cybercrime Cyber Risk Data Analytics Data Breach Data Governance Decision-Making DOJ Download Due Diligence Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) ESG FCPA Enforcement Actions Financial Crime GDPR HIPAA Know Your Customer (KYC) Machine Learning Monitoring Ransomware RegTech Reputation Risk Risk Assessment SEC Social Media Risk Supply Chain Technology Third Party Risk Management Tone at the Top Training Whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Founded in 2010, CCI is the web’s premier global independent news source for compliance, ethics, risk and information security. 

Got a news tip? Get in touch. Want a weekly round-up in your inbox? Sign up for free. No subscription fees, no paywalls. 

Follow Us

Browse Topics:

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks Published by CCI
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • On Demand Webinars
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Well-Being
  • Whitepapers

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

Welcome to CCI. This site uses cookies. Please click OK to accept. Privacy Policy
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT