- Joined
- Nov 21, 1998
- Messages
- 12,543
- Reaction score
- 6,929
http://www.law360.com/articles/518238/8-lessons-from-halifax-s-85-million-settlement
"How did the hospital hope to avoid the exception to the employment exception — the one that says that the employment exception does not apply when compensation is based on the volume or value of referrals? The hospital argued that the exception to the employment exception is itself subject to an exception — call it “exception cubed.” The hospital argued that the productivity bonus is permitted if it’s based on the services personally performed by the physician. The hospital emphasized that each physician’s portion of the bonus pool was determined solely by reference to services personally performed by the physician. Performing more personal services was the only way to get a bigger share of the bonus pool.
The court was not persuaded. It noted that although each physician’s proportional share of the bonus pool was determined by his personal services, the amount of the total pool — and therefore of each physician’s share — was determined by the operating margin of the overall medical oncology program, which included revenue from services referred but not personally performed by the physicians (e.g., drug sales). That meant that the more referrals a physician made, the more money he received as a bonus."
If you are employed by a hospital and being compensated to direct services to your employer, consider filing a Whistleblower suit. It's important to do the right thing to reverse the monopolization of health care...especially if large facility fees or site of service differentials are subsidizing your productivity.
"How did the hospital hope to avoid the exception to the employment exception — the one that says that the employment exception does not apply when compensation is based on the volume or value of referrals? The hospital argued that the exception to the employment exception is itself subject to an exception — call it “exception cubed.” The hospital argued that the productivity bonus is permitted if it’s based on the services personally performed by the physician. The hospital emphasized that each physician’s portion of the bonus pool was determined solely by reference to services personally performed by the physician. Performing more personal services was the only way to get a bigger share of the bonus pool.
The court was not persuaded. It noted that although each physician’s proportional share of the bonus pool was determined by his personal services, the amount of the total pool — and therefore of each physician’s share — was determined by the operating margin of the overall medical oncology program, which included revenue from services referred but not personally performed by the physicians (e.g., drug sales). That meant that the more referrals a physician made, the more money he received as a bonus."
If you are employed by a hospital and being compensated to direct services to your employer, consider filing a Whistleblower suit. It's important to do the right thing to reverse the monopolization of health care...especially if large facility fees or site of service differentials are subsidizing your productivity.
