Employers Beware of Providing Free Uber to Workers' Medical Appointments: Experts
Uber Health's recent partnership with health tech startup Grand Rounds, which works with large, self-insured employers to provide employees with guidance on medical needs—including, now, free rides to appointments—may raise not-so-obvious risks and liabilities for the companies, legal experts told Corporate Counsel.
June 28, 2019 at 03:36 PM
4 minute read
Although designed to help employers by routing their workers to higher-quality, lower-cost health care providers, Uber Health's latest partnership may expose the companies to certain risks and liabilities, legal experts said.
Last week, the ride-hailing giant's growing health arm announced it has teamed up with health tech startup Grand Rounds, which works with large, self-insured employers to provide employees with a platform that helps them with everything from getting a second opinion to scheduling appointments with appropriate physicians. Now that also includes employees' Uber rides to medical appointments at the expense of the employers and their health plans.
Although Uber Health seemingly understands that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulates its receipt of protected health information and apparently takes steps to secure it—operating the platform on its own interface, for example—its transportation services may present issues that are not immediately apparent, said Diana Maier of employment and privacy law firm Maier Law Group.
Maier cites as an example the case of a health care worker who escorts a patient in a wheelchair from the facility to a waiting Uber vehicle with a message to the driver that the patient just received chemotherapy and thus is very weak or just had a named procedure and should lie down on the back seat during the ride. Although provided orally, such data qualify as protected health information that would trigger privacy regulations such as HIPAA, she added.
“There seems to me that there is a risk there,” she said. “If this is going to become the wave of the future, the smart route is to train providers about not talking to the driver about these kinds of matters.”
Another not-so-obvious issue, Maier said, is the existence of anti-kickback provisions that levy civil, often hefty, monetary fines for fraud and abuse on health care providers that offer free transportation to Medicare, Medicaid or Tricare beneficiaries.
Such an issue can be addressed, however, by observing various safeguards that the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services included in guidelines about ride-hailing services it issued a couple of years ago.
Maier said that employers can do so by making clear that the free Uber rides are incidental benefits to use of Grand Rounds' services.
“The biggest thing they would want to [ensure] is that the [free ride] is not the draw but is something that is offered to employees once they are already using Grand Rounds,” she said.
Keith Frank, a partner at Long Island, New York-based Moritt Hock & Hamroff, said issues could also arise if there were a vehicle accident en route to an appointment or the driver allegedly engaged in wrongful conduct toward the patient-passenger. For that reason, employers should ensure that there are contracts in place to protect them from claims against the company.
But Frank added he sees potential problems with the larger issue of any third party—in this case, Grand Rounds and Uber—injecting itself into the employer-employee relationship, namely the risk that employers somehow learn of employees' medical conditions, knowledge that could be used against the company in disability discrimination lawsuits.
“This opens up a Pandora's box if not properly managed,” he said. “There have to be checks in place if employers want to go down this road. There are risks and liabilities that employers could be taking on that they didn't have before.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHealth Care Giants Sue FTC, Allege Lina Khan Using Loaded Process to Vilify Pharmacy Benefit Managers
3 minute readHigh-Flying Genetics Testing Firm GeneDx Hires Ex-Zoetis GC as Legal Chief
2 minute readAs AI Transforms Drug Development, FDA Is Scrambling to Figure Out Guardrails
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 2Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 3These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 4'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
- 5Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250