American Bar Association Health Law Section

EVALUATIONS BY SESSION

Thursday, February 21st, 2008

Hospital Syndications: Opportunities and Options, or a Thing of the Past? Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. Hector G. Calzada, Jr. 40 1.40 31 1.77

C. Mitchell Goldman 41 1.46 34 1.50

Leigh Walton 41 1.32 35 1.34

Options: Excellent (1), Good (2), Average (3), Poor (4)

Comments: 24Too many unexplained acronyms in slides and presentation.

The Latest in Clinical Research: New Medicare Policy on Clinical Trials and the Trials of Expanding Litigation Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. Bruce F. Howell 15 1.80 5 2.20 (Moderator)

Kirk L. Dobbins 16 1.63 11 1.55

Robyn Shapiro 16 1.50 11 1.55

Comments: 16A little too basic and general

Developments in Medical Staff and Credentialing: A Review of Recent Developments and Reactions from Hospital and Physician Perspectives Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. Alexandria Hien McCombs 13 1.77 6 1.33 (Moderator)

James “Mac” Stewart 13 1.38 10 1.40

Phil Zarone 13 1.62 10 1.30

Options: Excellent (1), Good (2), Average (3), Poor (4) Reading the HIPAA Tea Leaves—The Future of Security Rule Enforcement in the Post-Piedmont Era Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. Marc D. Goldstone 18 1.17 15 2.00 (Moderator)

Melissa L. Markey 18 1.39 15 2.00

R. Harold McCard, Jr. 18 1.33 15 2.00

Comments: 24Watch the undefined acronym use!

Platforms for Expanding Health Insurance Coverage: Perils and Prospects on the Path to Universal Healthcare Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. Jonathan K. Henderson 35 1.37 28 1.32

Shelley K. Hubner 36 1.28 29 1.31

Bret Tate 36 1.42 29 1.38

Comments: 28Loved this program!!! This was great.

[Shelley Hubner] 24Good overview of terminology and stats at outset gets everyone on same page

The New Form 990—Major New Information Disclosure Requirements for Hospitals Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. Ralph DeJong 28 1.61 21 1.62

Ronald J. Schultz 28 1.68 17 1.71

Comments: 24Too specific for a plenary session

31Topic was dry so boredom set in, but they were most knowledgeable.

Lessons for Transactional Lawyers: Reducing the Risks of Post-Transactions Activity Before the Transaction Closes Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. Roger D. Strode, Jr. 17 1.29 10 2.00 (Moderator)

Kenneth D. Bell 17 1.59 10 2.00

Richard C. Smith 17 1.59 10 2.00

Comments: 16Best session of conference—litigator perspective was valuable.

Tax-Exemption in the Spotlight—Current IRS and Legislative Initiatives Affecting Hospitals Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. Robert W. Friz 6 1.67 2 1.50 (Moderator)

Geoffrey Campbell 7 1.29 6 1.50

Lauren K. Mack 7 1.57 6 2.00

Doing Good and Doing Well: Improving the Community’s Health and the Hospital’s Bottom Line through Medical-Legal Partnerships Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. Randye Retkin 15 1.40 9 1.44

Charity Scott 15 1.27 9 1.33

Jennifer Stam 15 1.33 9 1.44

Options: Excellent (1), Good (2), Average (3), Poor (4) Friday, February 22nd, 2008

Conflicts of Law(yers): Legal Ethics When the Lawyer Becomes the Target Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. William W. Horton 42 1.52 29 1.69

Lisa D. Taylor 42 1.74 29 1.86

Comments: 24No powerpoint overview or highlights outline provided.

31Hypotheticals are great.

[William W. Horton] 16Good speaking skills but talked way too much with no point—too general!

[Lisa D. Taylor] 16Wish she could have talked about the hypo more.

Stark Reality: Analysis Evolves into Implementation Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. Shannon B. Hartsfield 37 1.73 14 2.50 (Moderator)

Julie E. Kass 40 1.30 30 2.10

Kevin G. McAnaney 40 1.48 28 2.11

Don Romano 40 1.50 25 2.20

Comments: [Julie Kass] 24Again, watch out for overuse of undefined acronyms

[Kevin McAnaney] 24Need to provide slides as handouts if not in book

[Don Romano] 25CMS information very small type, hard to read. Responding to Childhood Obesity: The Role of Law and Public Policy Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. Donald E. Benken 6 1.50 3 1.33 (Moderator)

Marice Ashe, JD, MPH 6 1.00 5 1.00

Sara Rosenbaum, JD 6 1.67 3 1.33

Overview of Final 403(b) Regulation—What You Need to Know and Do Before the End of 2008 Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. Gregory L. Needles 2 1.00 2 1.00

Cheryl Press 2 1.00 2 1.00

Providers and Vendors: Managing Tricky Relationships Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. R. Jeffrey Layne 33 1.21 24 1.42

Carol A. Poindexter 33 1.18 24 1.46

Comments: 24Much easier to understand discussion of Stark by hypos than the plenary session related to this topic. Fraud and Abuse Enforcement Update Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. Joyce Branda 32 1.44 13 1.92

Thomas S. Crane 33 1.65 17 1.88

Gregory E. Demske 33 1.52 14 2.00

Comments: 22Very interesting and timely!

[Joyce Branda] 24Talked too fast and so difficult to understand her diction

Emergency Room Call Controversies Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. William E. Hopkins 10 1.40 3 1.67 (Moderator)

John D. Harwell 10 1.20 3 2.00

Julie M. Nelson 10 1.20 6 1.33

Payment (or Not) for Never Events Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. Karen Ann P. Lloyd 11 1.64 8 2.00 (Moderator)

Steven R. Smith 12 1.50 10 2.00

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC 12 1.58 10 1.95

Comments: [Steven R. Smith] 24 [Average] but has good knowledge of topic basics

[Cindy Stamer] 23Not always clear

24Hard to read; run a spell check The New Interactions Between Payors & Providers: The Emerging Battlefield & Cost Efficiency Tactics Oral Written No. Ave. No. Ave. Denise Webb Glass 9 1.67 4 2.00 (Moderator)

Almeta Cooper 9 1.44 5 1.80

Fred A. Smith, III 9 1.33 5 1.40

Comments: 39Great group discussion OVERALL EVALUATION RESULTS 9th Annual Conference on Emerging Issues in Healthcare Law February 21-22, 2008 ● Omni San Diego Hotel ● San Diego, CA

1. How would you rate your overall experience at the program? Options: Excellent (1), Good (2), Average (3), Poor (4) Number of Respondents: 51, Average: 1.39

2. Please circle the word that best describes your rating of the written materials: Options: Excellent (1), Good (2), Average (3), Poor (4) Number of Respondents: 50, Average: 1.62

Comments: 39Missing several pieces used in presentations.

47For some programs were non-existent. Must stress this for future speakers.

3. There was a clear educational need for the material. Options: Strongly Agree (1), Agree (2), Disagree (3), Strongly Disagree (4) Number of Respondents: 50, Average: 1.40

Comments: 24But not specific to my needs as new lawyer

40Incomplete materials are aggravating!

4. The program met the course objectives. Options: Strongly Agree (1), Agree (2), Disagree (3), Strongly Disagree (4) Number of Respondents: 49, Average: 1.37

Comments: 4I prefer repeat session for the hottest topics.

24For others, but not for me

5. Did you find the programs:

43 Appropriate for your background and interest?

Comments: 16Method using hypos for types of transactions very helpful; good teaching tool.

33Though it’s more geared toward hospital issues

42Not all were important to my background, but all provided great information.

1 Too basic?

Comments: 43Parts were (provider/vendor relations, Fraud and Abuse Update) 4 Too sophisticated?

Comments: 28I am quite new to the field, so a basics course could be useful, if that’s something the program wants to do. If the purpose of the program is for more sophisticated attorneys, then it might be good to note that somewhere. I know that I am not the only new attorney to healthcare. I still found the programs extremely interesting and insightful.

6 Focused differently than you had anticipated?

Comments: 4The stated content and delivery were different.

24Many sessions were too specific to a narrow band of healthcare. Almost no content on risk management, patient safety issues, malpractice litigation defense or elder healthcare issues. Brochure should have indicated focus was high-level transactional, for the most part for the plenary sessions. Need more balanced approach to content choice for plenary sessions.

6. What attracted you to this particular program?

5 Invited to speak, moderate

4 The speakers, moderators

11 Location

10 CLE Credit

25 Reputation of the program

19 Need education in this area

3 Other: 17Subject matter 38Program topics 45Certain of the topics

7. How did you hear about this conference? (check all that apply)

23 Mailed Brochure

28 Email

7 Colleague

2 Sponsor

19 Previous Conference

0 CSHA Letter

5 Speaker/Moderator 9. Comments relating to this program:

4The subject matter/topics were good. However, at each session the same info was repeated.

5Very good program.

6Adequate program. Great location.

7Bar none, best conference I’ve been to in 15 years.

11As a newbie lawyer with no significant experience with the realities of healthcare law, the conference was too sophisticated for me. Not sure how many new lawyers attend but would be great to see a basic health law track or program within the conference.

14Enjoyed the broad spectrum of topics—good overall information for a new attorney.

16ABA staff member should make sure each speaker can be heard and speaks properly into microphone before program begins = sound check!

18It’s a fabulous event.

19Good overall

20Great program! Thank you! Thank you, too, for making it affordable (seminar cost and hotel rate) for us gov’t employees.

23Great program!

24This was mainly a conference for transactional healthcare attorneys who do deals for MD groups and facilities. Not much content for attorneys in other areas of healthcare law.

27This conference was focused on for-profit or non-profit hospitals. I practice in a public, government institution. Unfortunately, this conference schedules tax-related, Stark issues without any other meeting to attend at the same time. This is not useful for me. (We employ all of our physicians.)

28It would be helpful to have copies of the slides used during the presentations.

31The Form 990 should have been an elective breakout session.

32This was an excellent program. I wished I could have attended all of the concurrent sessions scheduled for the 3:45pm – 5:00pm time slot on Friday (ER, never events, and provider/payor interactions).

33Good range of topics with knowledgeable speakers.

39Generally, good speakers; just not enough sessions relevant to my practice.

42Very heavy in tax and transaction subjects, but appropriate given the state of the profession. Very interesting “new” issues.

45I suggest offering some other discussion groups when have plenary sessions if that session does not interest one. Perhaps just have a moderator and let attendees discuss current concurrents and issues on their practices; also, where visuals aren’t in the materials, use as handouts.

47Good program. I enjoyed it again.

48The programs I attended on Thursday were the best in my personal memory. 49Best locale of the 4 EMI’s I’ve attended.

10. What were the highlights of this program for you?

4The Stark analysis was excellent. (This is what an apple is, and this is what it looks like). And, it was still at an advanced level. Great job all-around.

5The break out sessions.

6Location.

9HIPAA talk was excellent.

10Stark.

11Great to see public health law as a topic!!

13Excellent programs. Wonderful time catching up with people I have known/worked with for many years.

14403(b) update was wonderful. Really enjoyed the platforms for expanding health insurance presentation.

16Transactional program was great because it presented a different point of view.

18Networking; cutting edge topics and speakers; CLE

19Medical-Legal Partnerships

20Enjoyed it all.

21Hospital syndications

22Topics

23Location—hotel and city; hearing directly from government enforcers; ethics

24HIPAA e-data security update; providers and vendors tricky relationships

26Quality of participants

27Information on Med. Staff issues, vendor relationships

28I loved the Expand Health Insurance Program and the DOJ/OIG Enforcement Updates. Everyone was so honest and provided great insight to confusing areas.

29Meeting new people. Chance to hear national experts.

31Transactional sessions. Lessons for transactional attorneys was excellent! Also on call issues. Good to have physician representation comments.

32Hospital syndications was superb. Form 990 was shockingly good, as was the tax-exempt session, for a non-tax lawyer. Emergency room coverage was superb too!

33Interactions between Providers and Payors, Managed Care IG lunch, Form 990, Interest Group lunches

35The increase in clinical research topics over past years. 42Uninsured/underinsured plenary session; ethics topic was outstanding!

45Updates on Stark /anti-markup/similar initiatives and regulations for deals: ability to meet and discuss issues with other attorneys.

47The tax exempt status program and IG lunches.

48The Hospital Syndications program, the two tax programs and the Tax & Accounting IG luncheon

49I always enjoy the litigation-focused sessions.

50Emergency Room Call Controversies

11. Suggestions on focus or topics for future versions of this program:

4Conducting an internal investigation; Medicare-Medicaid risk assessments; pepper observation vs. admission; rooms were too cold

5Medical malpractice—from both sides of the issue; med-mal insurance

14Have a specific new attorney overview of healthcare-related topics—possibly sponsored by YLD of ABA. Provide prior to conference (i.e. on the Wed.).

16Physician conflicts of interest as pertaining to transactions, e.g. equipment purchase, pharmaceutical companies.

17FDA issues—full range

18Auditor relationships with counsel—flash points and attorney privilege considerations post- Sarbanes

19Physician’s issues.

20Hot topics, current topics, controversial healthcare topics. Maybe geared toward a more general healthcare audience rather than hospitals.

24Patient safety/risk management and elder care issues; less on transactional and high level joint ventures.

25Mental health issues

28Healthcare 101 or The Basics or something along these lines.

29Voluntary disclosures.

32Intellectual property rights in clinical research studies (from researcher’s work); paying for wellness/prevention, and alternative care (i.e. chiropractic, acupuncture); reimbursement issues on the horizon (i.e. Part D tweaks, Medicaid issues, etc.)

35We have never had sessions on home care. Would love to see topics in this area.

40Personal health records

42Would love to attend a session on cutting-edge (no legal “answers”) technology—RFID, nanotechnology, EHRs, etc.

44Clinical trial issues 47It is always good to hear programs from non-lawyer industry leading experts in cutting edge issues.

48In many cases, more of the same or better—a couple of speaker improvements may be necessary.

49Litigation-focused sessions.

12. Please rate the following categories: Options: Excellent (1), Good (2), Average (3), Poor (4)

Meeting Rooms Used Number of Respondents: 48, Average: 1.38

Comments: 13Only issue—wireless connection in meeting room would have been helpful, particularly when I was a speaker/panelist.

17Very poor lighting

20Too cool (cold)

50Too cold!

Catering Functions Number of Respondents: 47, Average: 1.64

Comments: 17Add a hot soup rather than pasta salad

31Cookies or snack in afternoon session would be good

Atmosphere Number of Respondents: 48, Average: 1.33

Location in City Number of Respondents: 48, Average: 1.33

13. Please circle the term that most closely describes your profession:

6 Academic

7 Government

1 Healthcare Administrator

42 Lawyer

3 Physician

0 Press

0 Student

3 Other: 9Educator 23Risk Manager- med mal insurance carrier 40Consultant 14. Would you attend this conference again?

44 Yes

Comments: 11[Yes] but probably not until I have more knowledge of the basics.

24Doubt it unless content is different.

27[No] unless format changes.

39Not unless agenda/topics are more relevant to my area (I thought more would be relevant)

48Do I have a choice?

Other comments or suggestions for overall improvement can be written below.

3The Omni Hotel was located next to the train crossing. The train made several pass-throughs every night and kept me awake. This downtown San Diego location was noisy.

4There was a lot of discussion re the issues, but very few take-away points. For example, this is how you do/respond to this. Particularly in the lunches. That would have been the perfect opportunity for that type of interaction.

10Getting attendee list in advance would be ideal.

11Formal networking for health law jobs for new lawyers. Advice/counseling sessions for new health law attorneys.

16Better lighting in room to read materials. Provide handout of lobby easel diagram with layout of rooms A-E.

17Well-planned. Good program. Well-executed.

18Continue to focus on diversity of speakers. Continue to provide fresh topics and speakers to foster openness and inclusiveness of the Section. Consider developing “tracks” for varying levels of expertise of attendees as done by big ABA in the Annual meetings.

20Great presentations, enjoyed the free continental breakfasts and boxed lunches, receptions, etc. Very well organized and a great conference to attend. Also, appreciate getting full year CLE at one time and reduced government rates! Would like to see replicas of materials used and video (slide) presentations for all sessions in the conference book. Many were there and found it much easier to follow along then. Plus, have them for reference later.

21Moderators need to control discussion so that participants don’t use floor to take time away from presenters.

23Thank you!

24Content and discussion lead me to believe lawyers in the healthcare field never even think about how the patients and patient care link to the legal issues and provision of legal services. Only one who did this well was Marc Goldstone. Learn from him! Overall quality of all presentations would be enhanced if presenters had training in platform skills and abandoned “panel table” presentation format in favor of “stand-up” presentation. 31Please email slide presentations. The ones that were helpful are nice for future reference but not included in book or on CD.

32Can you by any chance have programs that qualify for “practical skills” credit in NY? They are hard to come by, as opposed to “general” that many CLE providers offer. Also, please make the ethics program longer than 1 hour!

33Also include a session or two for managed care/health plans or session addressing hospital and health plan perspectives on an issue (such as P4P).

37Powerpoint presentations should be provided at conference. Lunch should be provided prior to 1pm.

40Rooms need a bit more light; lunch at 1pm pacific time is too late—especially for those from Eastern or Central time zones.

41Rooms were too dark; no plugs available for laptops—It would have been helpful for each group of panelists to give a 5 minute overview of the area so that audience members not that familiar with the area being discussed could have a baseline understanding of the subject.

42Hotel accommodations were excellent! Friendly, helpful staff. Great having rooms and conferences in “contained” area—easy to get to/from sessions and rooms. Jam-packed agenda—excellent learning opportunity!

48I was very pleased with the fabulous support from the Section Staff, and by the performance of most of the speakers I heard.