Co-Location of Hospital Space: CMS Issues Draft Guidance for Public Comment

13 May 2019 Health Care Law Today Blog
Authors: Lawrence W. Vernaglia Adria Warren Judith A. Waltz

On May 3, 2019, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued long-awaited draft interpretive guidance for hospitals relating to the “co-location” of services provided by separate healthcare entities. Co-location occurs where two hospitals or a hospital and another healthcare entity are located on the same campus or in the same building and share space, staff, or services.  The draft guidance is intended to introduce some flexibility for hospitals that share space, or co-locate, with other hospitals or healthcare entities.  

The big picture of the draft guidance is that clinical space must always be dedicated to the hospital, and that patients of a co-located entity cannot pass through the hospital’s clinical space (or vice versa), reflecting CMS’ concerns with infection control and patient privacy and security.  But if space can be adequately described as a “public area,” “public space,” or “public path of travel,” then the concurrent use of that space will not violate the CMS co-location draft guidance.  Sharing of staff and contracted services is also permissible, so long as there is no “floating,” such that staff is exclusively providing services for one co-located entity at any one time, and each of the co-located entities have sufficient oversight and maintain independent responsibility for compliance with Medicare Conditions of Participation (CoPs).

The draft guidance was released as a memorandum to State Survey Agency Directors from the CMS Director of the Quality, Safety & Oversight Group. In an unusual move for these sorts of releases, CMS is seeking comments.  Comments will be accepted up to July 2, 2019. 

Background

For a provider-based department, remote location or satellite facility of a hospital to qualify for provider-based status, the facility must be held out to the public and payers as part of the hospital, and adequately identified to assure that patients know they are entering a part of the hospital. (42 C.F.R. § 413.65(b)((3)(iv)) Although this standard does not expressly address co-location, since at least 2011, CMS has taken a restrictive view in regional office guidance and public presentations (e.g., presentation of David Eddinger, CMS Technical Director, Hospital Survey & Certification, for American Health Lawyers Association (AHLA) webinar on March 25, 2015), enforced through the survey and accreditation process,, to require that co-located facilities must demonstrate separateness of space – including both clinical and non-clinical (e.g., registration and waiting areas) space, with limited exceptions.  The generally recognized CMS’ view was that patients could enter into a common atrium, and use a common elevator, but then they would need to turn right to go to one provider and left to go to another – they could not traverse one provider’s space to access another.  Nor could the providers take advantage of shared waiting rooms or common non-clinical areas.  

Proposed Guidance

The draft guidance, if finalized, would introduce a level of flexibility to permit co-location, with limitations, overturning the more restrictive prior standards applied by CMS. We anticipate that the flexibility will be welcomed by many in the hospital community, as it would not only introduce greater clarity and uniformity in the survey process, but also permit co-located providers to effectively share certain “public” spaces and paths of travel. Clinical space designated for patient care, or separate space necessary for patient confidentiality or security, would need to be kept distinct to each provider/entity.  Providers would be individually responsible for compliance with CoPs in all areas of the co-located facility, including both the shared “public” space and the segregated clinical space.  State licensure and accreditation standards will also need to be taken into account in structuring any arrangement.

Under the draft guidance, hospitals and other “healthcare entities” would specifically be able to share “public” spaces such as:  


  • Main entrances;
  • Waiting areas;
  • Bathrooms;
  • Staff Lounges;
  • Elevators;
  • Main corridors through non-clinical areas;
  • Lobbies; and
  • Reception areas (with separate “check-in” areas and clear signage).

These types of spaces are now treated as “common areas” and “public spaces and public paths of travel.” They may share this space in a co-located environment.  On the other hand, clinical space may still not be shared between the hospital and another co-located healthcare entity.  

A second issue which was addressed in the draft guidance was somewhat unexpected. The draft guidance permits sharing of staff so long as they are clearly dedicated to work for the hospital and some other entity at distinct times.  In other words, the staff would need to be assigned exclusively to the hospital during a given shift.  Staff cannot “float” between two hospitals (or be “on-call” for a hospital and a co-located entity) during that same work shift. There is some ambiguity as to whether the exclusivity requirement would apply for purposes of both clinical and non-clinical staff, which is likely to be clarified in the final guidance. Medical staff (physicians and others as recognized by the hospital), in any event, may be shared or “float” between co-located hospitals if they have appropriate privileges and are credentialed for both facilities. This makes sense as members of the medical staff are not considered part of the hospital’s work force. 

Hospitals must also have appropriate policies and procedures in place for addressing emergency care needs 24 hours per day and 7 days per week.  If the hospital contracts for emergency support services, the services need to be provided exclusively and without any overlap with the co-located entity that might impede delivery of care.

The draft guidance further recognizes that hospitals may obtain services under contract or arrangement with the co-located hospital or healthcare entity, including laboratory, food services, pharmacy, maintenance, housekeeping and security services, in compliance with CoPs.  

In surveying a hospital, surveyors would follow interpretive guidance and survey procedures applicable to quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) and contracted services. (42 C.F.R. §§ 482.21 and 482.12(e), respectively)

As comments are likely to be coming in from multiple sources, we anticipate further refinement of this draft guidance by CMS.  Foley & Lardner LLP is assembling comments for submission.  In addition, Foley & Lardner LLP is participating in a webinar sponsored by AHLA’s Regulatory, Accreditation and Payment Practice Group on June 5, 2019.  That webinar will include some of the authors and interpreters of the guidance at CMS, including David Wright, CMS’ Acting Deputy Center Director, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, Karen Tritz, Director of CMS’ Division of Acute Care Services, and Danielle Miller, CMS’ subject matter expert on co-location.  We expect additional insights to be developed during and after that webinar.  

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.