Michigan Health Law Link : Michigan Health Care Lawyer & Attorney : Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge Law Firm : Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Traverse City

The Michigan Supreme Court has issued its long-awaited decision in Jilek v Stockson, and it is a victory for healthcare providers.

The Supreme Court summarily reversed the Court of Appeal’s holding that the applicable standard of care for a physician board-certified in family practice medicine but practicing in an urgent care facility was that of an emergency medicine physician. The Supreme Court succinctly held, “[T]he appropriate standard of care was ‘family practice’ because the defendant physician is board-certified solely in family practice.” The Supreme Court added that it was proper to allow the jury to consider the setting in which the physician was practicing, i.e., urgent care as opposed to an emergency medical facility.

The Supreme Court also reversed the Court of Appeal’s holding that the urgent care center’s internal policies and procedures could be used as evidence of a breach of the standard of care. Interestingly, the Court did not author its own reasoning on this point but rather, incorporated by reference the dissent contained in the Court of Appeals opinion. It reasoned that this case was indistinguishable from prior case law holding that policies and procedures were inadmissible for purposes of establishing the standard of care. This rationale is consistent with long established public policy arguments in favor of protecting and encouraging best practices without fear of having those efforts used against them in court.

What this Means for Healthcare Providers

Health care providers can be reassured that courts will not be allowed to sanction the use of experts whose qualifications do not match the specialty in question; rather, their conduct will continue to be judged by someone with similar knowledge, skill and experience, in a setting- specific context.

Hospitals can be reassured that their internal policies and procedures remain inadmissible to establish the standard of care. While plaintiffs’ attorneys will likely continue their efforts to seek admission of policies and procedures for other reasons, they must still overcome a relevancy objection. Notably, Jilek does not address the threshold discoverability of policies and procedures.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In August, we reported that Michigan had submitted an application to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requesting a waiver of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) medical loss ratio requirements for its individual health insurance, claiming that without a phase-in to the medical loss ratio requirements, many insurers would stop offering insurance in Michigan. Under the ACA, health insurers must spend 80% (individual and small group revenue) to 85% (large group revenue) of premiums on direct care for patients and efforts to improve care quality. This percentage is called the medical loss ratio (MLR). Starting in 2012, insurers who come short of the MLR must provide a rebate to their customers under the ACA.

Michigan's waiver application requested a phase-in of the MLR requirements between now and January 1, 2014.

HHS denied Michigan's request in full, finding that research in Michigan showed that most of its insurers were either profitable or adjusting business models to meet the 80% standard. This, according to HHS, showed no intent by the insurers to stop offering insurance in Michigan, and consequently that no waiver was justified.

Of the 17 states that have asked for adjustments to the MLR requirements, six have been turned down, five received partial exemptions, and only Maine had its full request approved. The rest of the applications remain outstanding.

Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge will continue to monitor this decision and its impact on Michigan.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In an unpublished opinion on September 29, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that a physician cannot refuse to enter into a physician-patient relationship with a single woman seeking in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment because the woman is single.

In Moon v. Michigan Reproductive & IVF Center, P.C., plaintiff Allison Moon contacted two fertility clinics and specifically asked if the clinics would provide IVF services to a single woman. Both clinics responded that they did not provide such services to a single woman. Moon filed a discrimination suit against both clinics, alleging a violation of the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) based on her marital status. The lower court dismissed the claim, stating that under that under the common law, a physician could refuse to enter into a physician-patient relationship with any individual for any reason or no reason at all. The lower court found that under the language of the ELCRA, discrimination was prohibited "except where permitted by law." Thus, the court found that since common law allowed a physician to choose who he or she wanted to enter into a physician-patient relationship with for any or no reason, the ELCRA was inapplicable to the physician-patient relationship.

The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court, finding that the ELCRA specifically includes the right to receive services at a place of public accommodation, including a health facility, and it would be against the purpose of the ELCRA to allow such a broad reading of the physician-patient relationship. As such, the Court of Appeals held that a physician may only deny his or her consent to enter into a physician-patient relationship with a potential patient based on legally permissible, nondiscriminatory reasons.

Smith Haughey will continue to monitor this issue.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On August 23, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the patient-to-patient sale of medical marihuana is an enjoinable public nuisance,  meaning that the State can discontinue the activity due to its negative effects on the surrounding community, and that the operation of medical marihuana dispensaries violates the Michigan Public Health Code (PHC). The Court further found that the sale of medical marihuana is not excused by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) because the MMMA does not address patient-to-patient sales of marihuana.

In State of Michigan v. McQueen, the defendants owned and operated Compassionate Apothecary, LLC, a medical marihuana dispensary by which members who are either registered qualifying patients or their primary caregivers would purchase marihuana that other members had grown in excess of their medical needs and stored in lockers rented from the Apothecary. The Apothecary would facilitate the purchase and collect a 20% service fee on each sale.

The Michigan Court of Appeals found that the PHC governs the manufacturing, distributing, prescribing, and dispensing of controlled substances. The PHC defines marihuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, meaning it has been found to have a high potential for abuse and has no accepted medical use in treatment or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision. As such, except for certain circumstances involving medical research by a licensed practitioner, the PHC makes the possession of marihuana a misdemeanor offense and the manufacture, creation, and delivery of marihuana a felony offense.

The Court further found that the MMMA, which excuses the medical use of marihuana in certain circumstances, does nothing to change this rule under the PHC.  The MMMA does not "legalize" marihuana, but simply offers certain circumstances where criminal liability for its use can be avoided. According to the Court, the MMMA does not authorize dispensaries and does not state that patients can sell their marihuana to other patients. As such, the MMMA does not "excuse" this activity, and rather, it is governed by the PHC, which makes the sale of marihuana illegal.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On July 28, 2011, Michigan submitted an application to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requesting a waiver of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) medical loss ratio requirements for its individual health insurance.

Many insurance companies spend a portion of consumers' premiums on administrative costs and profits, including executive salaries, overhead, and marketing. Under the ACA, consumers will receive more value for their premiums. New regulations require health insurers to spend 80% (individual and small group revenue) to 85% (large group revenue) of premiums on direct care for patients and efforts to improve care quality. This percentage is called the medical loss ratio (MLR). Starting in 2012, insurers who come short of the MLR must provide a rebate to their customers under the ACA.

To compensate for transitional difficulties, the ACA allows the Secretary of Heath and Human Services to adjust the MLR standard for a State "if it is determined that meeting the 80 percent medical loss ratio standard may destabilize the individual market and . . . result in fewer choices for consumers." On July 28, 2011, Michigan submitted an application to HHS, requesting an adjustment to the MLR standard. The request may be found here.

Michigan's application requests a phase-in of the MLR requirements between now and January 1, 2014 where the MLR for 2011 would be 65%, followed by 70% for 2012, and 75% for 2013. Michigan's request stated that without this adjustment to its MLR requirements, "fourteen (14) companies would be scheduled to issue rebates totaling $30.6 million, with eight (8) paying rebates in excess of their after tax profit for 2010." This could lead such insurance companies to stop offering health insurance in Michigan. Currently, "the market is dominated by one insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, [who] already operates at an MLR [of 93%]." Thus, the loss of competitors could substantially reduce a consumer's choice of where to purchase health insurance. In addition to Michigan's request, U.S. House Representatives Dave Camp and Fred Upton have together submitted a letter to HHS in support of Michigan's adjustment.

According to the HHS website, Michigan's application is under review for completeness. Upon a finding by HHS that the application is complete, public comment will be invited regarding Michigan's request for ten days.

Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge will continue to monitor the progress of Michigan's request to adjust federally mandated MLR requirements.

Summer Associate Peter Afendoulis assisted in the writing of this entry.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Michigan House of Representatives recently passed a bill package that would allow for the permanent revocation of a healthcare professional’s license or registration for certain criminal sexual conduct (CSC) violations.

As proposed, House Bills 4411, 4412, and 4413 would amend the Public Health Code, making a conviction of a criminal offense for first-, second-, or third-degree CSC or a second or subsequent conviction of first-, second-, or third-degree CSC grounds for action by the disciplinary subcommittee. Further, these bills would make permanent revocation of the license or registration of a healthcare professional an option to the disciplinary subcommittee when assigning a sanction to a healthcare professional for a conviction of a criminal offense for first-, second-, or third-degree CSC or a second or subsequent conviction of first-, second-, or third-degree CSC.

Under current law, a licensee or registrant who is convicted of a CSC in the first through fourth degree or assault with intent to commit CSC can have their license or registration revoked; however, they can apply for reinstatement five years after the effective date of the revocation. But if the proposed legislation becomes law, only a license or registration revoked for a conviction of fourth-degree CSC or assault with the intent to commit CSC in the first-, second-, or third-degree could be reinstated after five years.

Smith Haughey will continue to monitor the progress of this legislation in the Michigan Senate. For a legislative analysis of House Bills 4411, 4412, and 4413, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks