health care provider legal issues related to covid-19 · health care provider legal issues related...

Privileged and Confidential Attorney Work Product Crowell & Moring LLP | 1

Health Care Provider Legal Issues Related to COVID-19 A Crowell & Moring cross-disciplinary team is currently assisting many clients, including health care providers, with COVID-19 issues. Below, we have identified some key issues that our health care provider clients are currently facing as well as resources that healthcare providers can rely upon in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Legislative & Regulatory

Below are several examples of issues we believe will necessitate strategic legislative, policy, and regulatory expertise:

• Congressional Focus. Through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) Congress has provided critical support for the health care industry to help address the immediate crisis, including appropriating funds and a mechanism to increase COVID-19 testing and provide more medical devices, personal protective equipment, and critical supplies to doctors, hospitals, and patients. In addition to small businesses and mid-large size distressed businesses, there is also major focus on providing funding to individual Americans in need and ensuring that testing, treatment, and drug coverage is affordable.

There is another large bill responding to the pandemic expected at the end of April, which will include additional funding and may include, among other things, additional protections for health care workers such as immunity for providers performing in a role other than their specialty.

• Health Care Provider-Focused or Otherwise Applicable Provisions of the CARES Act

o Funding designated for providers, e.g., the $127 billion Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund and the $200 million fund administered by the FCC for purchasing of telehealth related purchases;

o Loans, loan forgiveness, and tax credits;

o Reimbursement-impacting provisions, including expanding reimbursement for telehealth and other delivery models, deferred decreases in fee schedule amounts;

o Regulatory flexibilities allowing for and anticipating the need for greater social distancing when providing care;

o Privacy and information sharing;

o Regulation of the cost of providing certain COVID-19 related items and services and waiver of cost- sharing for certain procedures and testing;

o Reporting and monitoring obligations;

o Expansion of demonstration programs; and

o Availability of grants and cooperative agreements.

• Value-Based Care Programs. CMS, MA, Medicaid managed care, and commercial plans have engaged in new value-based arrangements with providers over the past decade including ACOs, bundled payment arrangements, and other risk-based arrangements. CMS has recently revised reporting requirements and will likely revise quality and cost saving metrics. These innovative payment program participants have been responding to COVID-19 by providing remote monitoring and telehealth services to manage their patient populations. Participants in these programs will need to review existing contracts and arrangements to


ensure that they are consistent with a rapidly changing healthcare environment while still complying with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and state law requirements.

• Telehealth Issues. Many providers are turning to telehealth to provide health care services during the COVID- 19 pandemic. The recently passed CARES Act includes a number of telehealth provisions, including increasing HHS flexibility to allow for the payment for telehealth services by the Medicare program during the emergency; allowing Medicare to pay for telehealth services in federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics during the emergency period; providing a temporary waiver of the requirement to have face to face visits between home dialysis patients and physicians to qualify for payment under Medicare; and allowing for the use of telehealth to conduct face to face encounters prior to recertification for hospice care during the emergency under the Medicare program. The subsequent CMS Interim Final Rule relaxes requirements to enable greater use of and reimbursement for telehealth, audio-only calls, virtual visits and remote patient monitoring. Some states have also changed requirements during the emergency for increased use of telehealth and remote care but there may be state restrictions that remain in place, including licensure requirements. Providers need to consider both state and federal laws related to telehealth and other types of virtual care. Providers must also consider various privacy and cybersecurity issues associated with using technologies such as text messaging and videoconferencing, although generally regulatory guidance has been relaxed during the public health emergency to enable the use of various technologies, even if they may not comply with HIPAA requirements. Providers may want to weigh their choice of technology for remote care based on any foreseeable security risks and the potential to use such telecommunications technology after the emergency has ended.

• Compliance with Multiple Governmental Agency Mandates and Regulatory Waivers. With the government focus on preventing and containing the spread of the coronavirus, nursing homes, long term care hospitals, hospice, home health agencies, inpatient rehab facilities, skilled nursing facilities, ambulatory surgery centers, academic medical centers, research institutions, and other health care providers are facing ever- changing directives from multiple levels and offices within government, including (at the federal level) CDC, CMS, FDA, OMB, BARDA, NIH, ASPR, DoD, FEMA, and OHSA, and (the state level), the Department of Health, the Governor’s office, and other regulatory bodies. The measures mandated by the government include proactive screening and self-quarantining of health care workers, restrictions on visitations of patients, and implementation of a host of stepped up infection control measures. Government surveys and inspections have been largely halted—with the exception of infection control regulations implicated by reported coronavirus infections among patients or staff. Nursing homes in certain states have been told to admit medically stable COVID-19 patients from hospitals to relieve pressure on bed capacity, notwithstanding concerns about available personal protective equipment in nursing homes and about the risks posed to, or perceived by, existing residents, families, and staff alike. At the same time, the government has relaxed, among other regulations: limitations on the scope of practice for certain licensed health practitioners; admission, assessment, and other care documentation and timing requirements; and transfer policies and practices, all to give providers greater flexibility to effectively respond to the coronavirus and care for infected patients. Providers should establish internal regulatory compliance teams that can track federal, state, and local guidance that impacts the provision of healthcare and protect their workforce. Many industry groups, news sources, and outside advisors can provide necessary support to reconcile conflicting guidance. (See below for a summary of Crowell & Moring’s available compendium of resources for healthcare entities.)

• Antitrust Compliance. Providers face numerous operational, supply-chain, and financial challenges

responding to COVID-19. Under these exigent circumstances—and sometimes in response to federal and state regulatory demands—collaboration and information sharing among health care providers and other


partners may be necessary to ensure that needed supplies, staffing, and information are available for providers to meet urgent patient-care needs. Federal antitrust agencies and state attorneys general, however, continue to vigorously enforce antitrust laws, while providing opportunities for providers and their collaboration partners to seek agency views prior to engaging in cooperative efforts that could raise antitrust concerns. Providers need to evaluate the antitrust risks of proposed collaborations, information sharing, and other transactions to minimize risks and expedite these critical endeavors.

Labor & Employment

Examples of employment-related issues health care providers are navigating include:

• Employee Screening, Testing, and Workplace Safety Concerns. Providers are facing emergent issues related to the permissibility and protocols for conducting medical screenings and inquiries of employees who work in healthcare settings in light of the EEOC’s updated 2020 pandemic guidance. They should also consider risk mitigation strategies to decrease the potential for OSHA complaints based on employers’ duty to warn and obligation to provide a work environment free from certain recognized hazards.

• Closure Orders and Related Legislation. Providers are confronting disputes regarding the interpretation of state executive orders and other federal, state, and local legislation and guidance directing non-essential workers to stay home. Providers need to (1) identify essential personnel, (2) obtain exemptions to legal restrictions from state agencies where appropriate, and (3) institute remote work arrangements where feasible.

• Employee Leave, Reduction-in-Force, and Furlough Issues. Reduction-in-force (RIF) and furlough plans must comply with state and federal WARN Act notifications and requirements. Similarly, providers that want to adjust employee salaries or implement alternative schedules and shifts in response to stay-at-home orders and the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic must keep in mind that such efforts may implicate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various state and local laws. Finally, providers should be aware of the risk of claims under FLSA and state wage laws for unpaid wages due to off the clock and overtime work made by employees who are asked to perform work remotely and/or on a reduced schedule.

• Employment Discrimination Claims. Providers may be exposed to claims of employment discrimination with respect to employment decisions made in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Disability discrimination claims under the ADA and state law are likely, as are EEO claims filed by individuals in various protected categories. Many of these are likely to be class actions. An employee on behalf of himself/herself or on behalf of a class could challenge the basis for personnel decisions if such decisions are made based on caregiver status (e.g., if the provider were to use an employee’s caregiver status as a contributing factor to the decision to furlough or layoff an employee). Providers may also experience discrimination claims based on the communication of an employee’s COVID-19 status.

• Employee Refusal to Work. Fearful of contracting COVID-19 in the workplace, employees on both an individual and concerted basis have begun to refuse to report to work at organizations that provide essential services to the public. Providers need to address employees’ safety concerns while mitigating both legal and operational risk.

• Whistleblower and Retaliation Complaints. We also anticipate seeing complaints raised by employees who allege they were subjected to adverse employment actions in retaliation to their raising concerns about workplace safety or other operational issues. Providers should evaluate their internal complaint procedures to reduce risk in these areas.


• Employee Benefit Plan Disputes. We expect large employers to see claims, including class actions, regarding administration of their employee benefit plans, including health insurance eligibility questions, COBRA disputes, and questions about administration of 401k plans.

• Enhanced Union Organizing. We anticipate that companies may experience increased efforts by unions to organize employees, or increased interest from employees in unionizing arising out of concerns about employee safety issues, scheduling, and layoffs.

Contract Performance

Some examples of contract performance issues likely to arise in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis include:

• Vendors Ceasing to Provide Services. Some health care providers may experience delays in their receipt of goods and services from contracted vendors alleging that they are unable to perform under the terms of their contracts due to circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, including staffing shortages caused by family and medical leave, the impact of state-wide shut-downs, and the sheer volume of services required as a result of COVID-19. Health care providers should analyze the impacted contracts, determine if any notifications required to preserve rights under applicable force majeure or “excusable delay” clauses have been adequately provided, efficiently supplement such goods and services by establishing new contractual arrangements with alternative vendors, and address areas of vulnerability in a provider’s ability to perform its contracted functions as a result of such delays.

• Health Care Provider Inability to Perform. For the same reasons, some health care providers may be unable to perform under the term of their contracts due to circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

• Lease Arrangements. The COVID-19 pandemic has created myriad lease issues for commercial landlords and tenants regarding leased premises, including whether operations are “essential” businesses and whether abatement of rent or termination rights may be available as a result of certain lease provisions or pursuant to the laws of the applicable jurisdiction. Relevant lease provisions may include permitted use, access rights, landlord services, default and remedies, abatement of rent, condemnation, hazardous materials, and force majeure provisions. The laws of certain jurisdictions might provide relief in the event of frustration of the purpose of the lease or impossibility of performance as a result of an irresistible cause. Providers should review the terms of existing leases as well as applicable law relating to (i) the rights of landlords and tenants, (ii) the continuing operation of leased premises, and (iii) relief from lease obligations that may be available as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

• Financing Arrangements. As a result of various State and local governments issuing orders closing all “non- essential” businesses as well as “shelter-in-place” orders mandating residents to stay inside, unreimbursed costs relating to delivering COVID-19-related services and significant reduction in the delivery of elective health care procedures, certain health care providers may not have adequate cash flow to pay the monthly debt service on their loans or may be in breach of other obligations or covenants. Providers should review the terms of existing financing arrangements and determine if and when notifications should be made to lenders and whether any force majeure provisions apply.

• Government Contracts with Health Care Providers. Health care providers may find themselves in the position of be asked to provide goods or services to their state or local governments.


Privacy & Cybersecurity

The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the need for health care providers and other players in the health care industry to strike the delicate balance between privacy and disclosure of health information that is related to COVID- 19. While privacy regulations are not suspended during such emergencies, various regulators have recently issued guidance clarifying permissible disclosures and announcing enforcement discretion and waivers of penalties for noncompliance with certain provisions in HIPAA privacy regulations. Examples of privacy and cybersecurity issues that providers may need to confront during the COVID-19 pandemic include:

• Disclosures of Health Information to Support Treatment and Public Health. Companies must confront legal

and regulatory issues surrounding disclosures of COVID-19-related information to third parties, such as state and local health departments and the CDC and White House, in efforts to facilitate care coordination and public health reporting. For example, the HHS Office for Civil Rights provided enforcement discretion for healthcare providers for use of technology that may not meet requirements of HIPAA for the provision of telehealth. The CARES Act aligns requirements and definitions of 42 CFR Part 2 regulations governing confidentiality of substance use disorder records with HIPAA requirements and definitions, when accompanied by prior patient consent and allows for disclosure of de-identified substance use disorder records to public health entities. The CARES Act also requires HHS to issue guidance within 180 days on what patient records can be shared during the COVID-19 emergency.

• Employee Privacy. Many companies should consider privacy issues regarding the health of their employees, such as requesting medical information from employees who report feeling ill, have traveled recently, or have been absent from work. Some employers that are also contemplating proactive measures such as taking employees’ temperatures at work must analyze the consequent privacy issues.

• Telework. As more employees work from home, it is becoming increasingly important for organizations to focus on the privacy and cybersecurity risks associated with increased teleworking. This is especially important for providers and other organizations in the health care industry whose employees handle sensitive health information on a daily basis. Providers should develop and implement teleworking policies and procedures based on applicable legal and regulatory requirements, consensus-based standards, and best practices.

• Cybersecurity Incidents. The prevalence of cybersecurity incidents is likely to increase in the coming months with increased telework and the frequency of COVID-19-themed phishing attempts and other scams. In the event of an incident, providers will need to navigate the forensic analysis process, determine breach notification obligations, draft notifications to individuals and regulators, and respond to any regulator inquiries.

• Ransomware. There is mounting evidence that hospitals and other providers are particularly vulnerable to ransomware attacks as malicious actors attempt to exploit vulnerabilities arising from increased teleworking and the widespread focus on COVID-19 response. Providers should assess their vulnerability to ransomware attacks, implement technical solutions to detect anomalous activity and mitigate vulnerabilities, establish a robust data backup and recovery plan, train and test employees on recognizing and responding to phishing attempts, and implement a comprehensive incident response program to efficiently and effectively respond to ransomware attacks.


Fraud & Abuse

While the COVID-19 virus will perhaps warrant a more benign approach to enforcement under the Stark law and the anti-kickback statute, zealous whistleblowers will see the mounting array of healthcare provider interactions with the federal government in which providers obtain and utilize federal funds as a new field for potential qui tam actions. Healthcare providers must take care and these interactions with the government to be certain that their certifications and the information provided in exchange for federal funding are truthful and accurate.

We foresee a number of potential fraud and abuse issues that health care providers may confront in the near future as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. While this list is growing by the day, we provide several examples below:

• Availability of Stark Law Blanket Waivers. Many healthcare providers have had to establish new and unique

financial and referral relationships with physicians in order to effectively combat the COVID-19 virus and provide accessibility to their patients. Recognizing that the Stark Law with its complex restrictions on such arrangements would hinder or prevent providers from attaining the flexibility necessary to establish such essential relationships, the secretary of HHS has issued 18 specific “blanket waivers” from the Stark Law’s prohibitions. The Secretary has afforded providers with opportunities to establish important new relationships without the shadow of potential Stark Law non-compliance and enforcement actions hanging over them. These blanket waivers were issued on March 30, but they are retroactively effective as of March 1, 2020.

The established blanket waivers require that the relationship which the healthcare provider and physician enter into relate to serving patients, or in some other way dealing with exigencies of the current healthcare crisis. If so related, the relationship need not directly involve COVID-19 patient treatment. The waivers focus specifically on removing those Stark Law strictures which would otherwise require that “fair market value” be exchanged between provider and physician in their financial arrangements. Such arrangements may include compensation, rental of space, and other services and commodities which would not have been permitted under Stark to be exchanged for something other than fair market value. CMS has indicated that parties utilizing the blanket waivers must make records relating to their use available upon request.

While additional waivers may be added, the Secretary has indicated that current waivers will not be terminated without prior notice. It is expected that providers will need to become again in compliance absent the waivers at the end of the declared public health emergency. Crowell & Moring has issued a client alert specifying the nature and extent of these Stark Law waivers.

• Potential False Claims Act Enforcement. Notwithstanding the government’s willingness to provide some leeway to health care providers in dealing with the COVID-19 virus with regard to financial and referral referral relationships under the Stark Law, providers will still need to take care that their interaction with the government does not give rise to False Claims Act (FCA) issues. The broader framework here is one in which new, complex sources of federal funds will be provided to healthcare providers. In such an environment, providers should take care that all certifications and reporting submitted for the receipt and use of federal funds are true and accurate. The CARES Act provides the aggressive qui tam or whistleblower bar with a myriad of opportunities to bring FCA cases against health care providers and health plans based on what they will contend are the falsity in representations that are required under the Act and other failures to comply with the law’s provisions. We note a few key areas that providers and their compliance officers and departments should focus on to lower FCA risk.

o Section 15010 of the Cares Act establishes a “Pandemic Response Accountability Committee” that is comprised of the inspector generals of multiple agencies, including HHS. The committee’s role will be to


avoid and help detect the misuse of any “covered funds.” If the Committee determines that “covered funds” have been misused this will undoubtedly result in referrals for the initiation of actions under the FCA to recover treble damages.

o Major categories of “covered funds” in the health care industry include, for example, the “add-on payments” to hospitals under section 3710, which increases by 20 percent the weighting factor for the diagnosis-related group (DRG) assigned for the services provided to individuals diagnosed with COVID–19 during a national emergency. These cases are supposed to be identified through the use of diagnosis codes, condition codes, or “other such means” as may be necessary. Whether hospitals are entitled to the “add-on payments” will likely be an issue that may generate FCA investigations and actions.

o As noted there are a variety of other theories of FCA liability that a failure to comply with the CARES Act may present. Another example of such liability may relate to the substantial monetary awards available for the detection, prevention and treatment of the COVID-19 virus. Those awards are subject to the requirements of the Public Health Services Act and if those requirements are knowingly not adhered to, the awards may be considered losses to the federal government subject to recovery under the FCA. The CARES Act also removes the cap on payment for certain public health emergency projects and directs the Secretary of HHS to use competitive procedures in entering into transactions to carry out these projects opening the door to allegations of FCA violations based on contentions that the competitive bids were inflated or otherwise corrupted.

o The descriptions above of potential FCA liability under the CARES Act are by no means exclusive. Wherever the Act calls for a representation, a certification or compliance with conditions, opportunities abound for FCA violations and it is critical that providers understand and take action to ensure compliance.

• Implications for Anti-Kickback Statute. Compliance with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute continues to be an important concern for our health care provider clients. The OIG recently announced that it would place a “high priority” on flexibility to provide needed care during the COVID-19 emergency. The OIG stated that it plans to coordinate its approach with HHS, CMS, and other law enforcement agencies. The OIG further said that it would carefully consider the context and intent of the parties before deciding to proceed with enforcement actions under its administrative authorities. In recent years, OIG has issued advisory opinions and statements adopting an approach that views arrangements with a primary purpose of providing care, improving quality and/or efficiency, or otherwise benefiting patients as compliant with the Anti-Kickback Statute. However, the OIG will still be looking to providers to maintain detailed records of the arrangements they enter into in order to address the COVID-19 emergency, and providers should continue to be aware that violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute can be predicates to costly FCA lawsuits and settlements.

• Other Health Care Fraud Risks. DOJ recently directed all U.S. Attorneys to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of fraud schemes related to the COVID-19 crisis and urged the public to report suspected fraud to the National Center for Disaster Fraud (NCDF). Examples of such fraud schemes included: (1) individuals and businesses selling fake cures for COVID-19 online; (2) phishing emails from entities posing as the World Health Organization or the CDC; (3) malicious websites and apps that appear to share information related to COVID-19 to gain and lock access to your devices until payment is received; (4) seeking donations fraudulently for illegitimate or non-existent charitable organizations; and (5) medical providers obtaining patient information for COVID-19 testing and then using that information to fraudulently bill for other services. There will be many other ways for those that seek to defraud to do so, and DOJ has vowed to monitor any suspect activities. Providers should ensure that they do not engage in or contract with other entities that are engaging in such conduct.


Commercial Litigation

• Contractual Commercial Disputes. As COVID-19 and the response to the pandemic disrupt the world economy, we expect health care providers will assess contractual relationships and seek to revise or terminate those that no longer make business sense in today’s environment. This will include attempts to reach negotiated agreements, engagement in more formal dispute resolution processes, and potentially litigation. Issues that are likely to come up include force majeure provisions, conditions precedent and antecedent, and impossibility.

• Disputes Between Providers and Employees. Health care providers are unique in the need for their employees to be physically present at the workplace. If employees are compelled to come to work and providers are unable to provide proper protective equipment, this could lead to lawsuits. Employees may also develop claims if they contract COVID-19 as a result of workplace activity.

• Provider-Vendor Disputes. Many vendors are strained in their ability to fulfill orders in light of stay-at-home and other orders in multiple jurisdictions. If work stoppages or shortages cause vendors to be unable to fulfill orders—e.g., for personal protective equipment—we envision a series of related lawsuits between providers and vendors.

• Provider-Patient Disputes. As the health care system gets more strained, we envision a number of potential causes of action from patients against healthcare providers, including:

o Lawsuits related to standard of care. As health care systems are stretched, what constitutes an appropriate standard of care is likely to change. This could lead to lawsuits from patients who contend they were not afforded the level of care they expected or needed.

o Lawsuits from patients refused care. Other countries have instituted policies restricting health care services to those most likely to recover. Patients refused health care services that they believe are necessary could bring suit against healthcare systems for failure to provide services.

o Lawsuits from patients who could not get necessary elective surgery. Patients could bring suit against health care systems if they are unable to get elective surgeries they believe they need because providers are overwhelmed providing COVID-19 care.

o Lawsuits from patients who contract COVID-19 through interaction with health care providers. Patients or relatives who contract COVID-19 after going to a doctor’s office could develop claims against health care providers if the providers did not take proper precautions to separate patients or otherwise provide protective measures to prevent spread of the disease.

• COVID-19 Reimbursement Disputes. We envision new matters arising based on coverage of COVID-19- related conditions, including issues relating to coverage requirements arising from almost daily mandates by CMS, state DOIs, and Medicaid agencies.

• Recovery. Understandably, recovery opportunities may not be top of mind for our health care industry clients during this trying time. That said, potential avenues for recovery resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic include disruption of services, price-gouging, and contract breaches.


Why Crowell?

Crowell & Moring is uniquely positioned to advise health care providers on COVID-19 for the following reasons:

• Existing Relationship with Health Care Providers. We have been advising providers as well as health plans, TPAs, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and digital health companies for decades, experience that has given us a deep understanding of health care providers’ goals, priorities, services, and approach to health care. That knowledge and our on-going work in this space give us a significant head start and allow us to expand our role quickly and efficiently as a strategic partner.

• COVID-19 Experience. Crowell & Moring has a multidisciplinary team to help clients respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, and we are advising clients in many different industries, including health care, on a wide variety of issues such as employment, global mobility, workplace safety, privacy and security, crisis communication, compliance with federal, county, state, and municipal orders regarding essential and non-essential business operations, supply chain, contract performance, preservation of rights, insurance, litigation, and antitrust, among others.

• COVID-19 Resources. Crowell & Moring has been collecting a number of healthcare resources that we are providing to clients including a summary with links to federal, state, and non-governmental resources that serves as a one-stop shop for healthcare providers who need to ensure that they are capturing the most up to date information. Additionally, Crowell is capturing detailed information regarding stay-at-home orders and other state and local emergency declarations for almost all states and major cities throughout the country. Please reach out to your Crowell & Moring contact to obtain this information.

• Crisis Management Experience. We have helped clients respond to and operate through numerous crisis situations, as well as the investigations that often flow from them. Crowell brings broad multi-practice experience and strengths beyond our dedicated health care attorneys. We work closely with management to address and overcome all dimensions of a crisis—from maneuvering through the thicket of legal issues and mitigating potential liability, to working with regulators, to seeking regulatory or legislative relief. When needed, we also help our clients develop company messaging with non-legal advisors such as public relations and communications firms. The Crowell & Moring team includes attorneys and government affairs professionals who are currently working with clients to manage the COVID-19 crisis and its implications, by engaging in communications with the White House, the U.S. Congress, federal agencies, state capitals, and courthouses. For example, we are currently working with a major health care client to provide health care providers with a large supply of critical personal protective equipment, as well as assisting in communications and negotiations with the White House, the U.S. Congress, and HHS. As another example, we are providing ongoing legal advice to a major international social services organization for disaster relief services nationally, including with respect to their partnership with FEMA.

• Government Experience and Connections. Many members of our team have held high-level positions at key government agencies, including HHS, CMS, HHS-OIG, DHS, FTC, DOJ, OMB, DOL, and FDA. Paul Rosen, a core member of our COVID-19 response team, served in senior roles at DHS, including as chief of staff. At DHS, he was deeply involved in the federal government’s response to the Ebola and Zika epidemics.

• An Industry-Focused Regulatory Team. We offer our clients a seamless, one-stop approach that combines substantive industry knowledge with legal expertise. That approach is particularly important in a crisis, where our health care provider clients are facing issues that test legal and regulatory boundaries while operating in unprecedented circumstances.


Contacts

If you have questions about any of these issues, please reach out to any of the lawyers listed below.

Washington, D.C.

Jacinta Alves Partner Washington, D.C. [email protected] +1 202.624.2573

Troy A. Barsky Partner Washington, D.C. [email protected] +1 202.624.2890

John T. Brennan Jr. Partner Washington, D.C. [email protected] +1 202.624.2760

Jodi G. Daniel Partner Washington, D.C. [email protected] +1 202.624.2908

Kelly Hightower Hibbert Counsel Washington, D.C. [email protected] +1 202.624.2782

Barbara H. Ryland Senior Counsel Washington, D.C. [email protected] +1 202.624.2970

California

Gary Baldwin Partner San Francisco [email protected] +1 415.365.7850

Renée Delphin- Rodriguez Partner Los Angeles rdelphin-rodriguez@ crowell.com +1 213.310.7988

Kevin B. Kroeker Partner Los Angeles [email protected] +1 213.443.5586

New York

Stephanie Marcantonio Partner New York smarcantonio@ crowell.com +1 212.895.4305

Brian McGovern Partner New York bmcgovern@ crowell.com +1 212.895.4306

Paul Mourning Partner New York pmourning@ crowell.com +1 212.895.4307

mailto:[email protected]








health care provider legal issues related to covid-19 · health care provider legal issues related...

Documents