Fraud & Abuse

Published on: April 9, 2021

Can Patient Assistance Programs Help Patients Pay for Medical Costs?

When an expensive treatment option is unavailable to a patient because of cost or lack of insurance coverage, some healthcare providers turn to a Patient Assistance Program or PAP to help their patients pay for treatment. The Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has long recognized that PAPs provide important safety net financial assistance to patients that cannot afford the costs of treatment.

However, OIG believes PAPs also present a risk of fraud, waste, and abuse. OIG’s primary concerns are that donor contributions to the PAP and the PAP’s grants to patients both implicate the Anti-Kickback Statute because they could induce or influence the PAP to send business to the donor or influence the patient to choose certain items. Similarly, OIG has expressed concern that a PAP’s grants to patients implicate the Beneficiary Inducement Statute because it could influence the patient’s selection of a particular provider.

Therefore, a PAP should be structured with certain safeguards in place to steer clear of fraud, waste, and abuse allegations. These safeguards may include structuring the PAP as an independent charitable organization that is not controlled by the donors. OIG has indicated that, in order to ensure such independence, a PAP should not exert direct or indirect influence over its donors, nor should donors have links to the charity that could directly or indirectly influence the operations of the charity or its grant programs. Safeguards may also include making the assistance available to all eligible patients on an equal basis and providing it on a first-come, first-served basis to the extent that funding is available; awarding assistance without regard to any donor’s interests and without regard to the patient’s choice of product, provider, practitioner, supplier, or insurance plan; and providing assistance based upon a reasonable, verifiable, and uniform measure of a patient’s financial need. A PAP and providers should also be cautious about advertising the existence of the PAP or the availability of assistance.

Published on: March 29, 2021

First Provider Relief Fund Indictment Provides Window Into Enforcement Issues

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On February 10, 2021, the United States Department of Justice filed the first criminal charges relating to a alleged violation of the terms the Provider Relief Fund (PRF). The allegations contained in the indictment illustrate some of the pitfalls of the PRF and the importance of compliance with its terms. It may also provide insight into coming enforcement actions.

The alleged defendant was a resident of southeastern Michigan who owned and operated a home health agency in Indiana. The home health agency closed in January 2020 and filed a notice of voluntary termination with Medicare in March 2020. However, despite the filing of this notice, when the first wave of payments under the PRF were automatically deposited into providers’ accounts in April, the defendant’s home health agency received approximately $38,000. The defendant then allegedly submitted an attestation to the terms and conditions of the PRF payment and allegedly distributed the funds to family members in a series of checks, all just under $10,000. The indictment charged the defendant with one count of Theft of Public Money, Property, or Records.

This indictment touches several possible areas of enforcement or audits of PRF payments, including eligibility criteria, attestations, and use of the funds. The first wave of payments under the PRF consisted of $30 billion that was automatically deposited in providers’ accounts in amounts based on a provider’s 2019 Medicare billing. Providers did not make requests or applications for this funding. However, simply because a provider received money did not mean they were entitled to keep it, a provider also had to meet the eligibility criteria, such as the requirement that it provided services after January 31, 2020.

Published on: March 22, 2021

A Primer on the Stark Law, Anti-Kickback Statute, and EKRA

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

Imagine a physician wants to rent office space from another physician, but the two refer patients to each other. Or a clinical laboratory wants to contract with a marketer to promote their products. Three of the largest compliance concerns when structuring such an arrangement are the Stark Law, also known as the Physician Self-Referral Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, often referred to as the AKS, and the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act, or EKRA. All three regulate referrals and can carry stiff penalties, sometimes criminal penalties. However, each also contains a series of exceptions or safe harbors into which some business structures may fit. Even simple arrangements between healthcare entities can involve complex analysis to comply with these statutes.

The Stark Law, 42 U.S.C. 1395nn, prohibits physicians from referring patients to receive “designated health services” payable by Medicare or Medicaid from entities with which the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship, unless an exception applies. Financial relationships include both compensation and ownership or investment interests. Designated health services include clinical laboratory services, PT and OT, DME, some imaging services, and several other services. Some of the most common exceptions to the Stark law include the in-office ancillary exception, fair market value compensation, and bona fide employment relationships. CMS has also recently implemented exceptions related to value-based arrangements.

The AKS, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b), is a criminal statute that prohibits the knowing and willful payment of “remuneration” to induce or reward patient referrals or the generation of business involving any item or service payable by federal health care programs. Remuneration means far more than cash payments and includes anything of value. If the AKS applies, conduct may still be lawful if it falls into one of several “safe harbors.” Some of the most common safe harbors are the investment interest safe harbor, specific types of rental agreements for office space or equipment, and contracts for personal services that meet certain criteria. Like the Stark Law, CMS has also implemented safe harbors for certain value-based arrangements.

Published on: March 1, 2021

A Primer on Medicare Revocation

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

A revocation of Medicare billing privileges can have devastating impacts on a healthcare provider. Not only does a revocation render the provider unable to bill the Medicare program for a period of time, but it can have wide-ranging impacts on a provider’s practical ability to operate or to practice in their chosen field.

Medicare billing privileges can be revoked for twenty-two enumerated reasons, including non-compliance with Medicare enrollment requirements, felony convictions, and failure to respond to requests for medical records. A recent expansion of CMS’s revocation authority also updated the ability to revoke a provider for an “abuse of billing privileges” to include a pattern or practice of submitting claims that do not meet Medicare requirements. In some cases, the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) gathers the information and determines to revoke a provider. In other cases, the MAC forwards the information to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and CMS makes the revocation determination. The revocation may be based on a prior interaction with the MAC or CMS, such as a prior audit of the provider. The provider may not necessarily be told during this interaction that it can lead to a revocation of billing privileges.

When CMS or a MAC revokes billing privileges, they will set a reenrollment bar, which dictates how long a provider must wait before it can reapply for Medicare billing privileges. CMS recently expanded its authority to set the reenrollment bar. In general, reenrollment bars may now be set between 1 and 10 years, depending on the circumstances, although certain provisions allow for longer bars. CMS may also decide to place a revoked provider on the CMS Preclusion List. The Preclusion List labels the provider a “bad actor” and cuts off their ability to bill Medicare Part C and Part D. A Medicare revocation or placement on the Preclusion List may also impact contracts outside the Medicare program. For example, commercial carriers may terminate participation agreements with a provider based on a Medicare revocation or placement on the Preclusion List.

Published on: January 15, 2021

HHS Increases Fairness and Notice in Civil and Administrative Proceedings

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On January 12, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued sweeping new directives regarding the procedures the Department will follow when relying on guidance documents, initiating enforcement actions, making jurisdictional determinations, and allowing prior notice and opportunity to be heard on agency determinations. These directives apply to civil and administrative enforcement proceedings and adjudications and take effect immediately.

First, HHS directed that the Department may not use guidance documents to impose binding requirements or prohibitions on persons outside of the executive branch except as authorized by law or expressly incorporated into a contract. That is, noncompliance with a standard or practice found only in a guidance document will not constitute a violation of the applicable statute or regulation. Further, the Department may refer to a guidance document in a civil enforcement action only if it has notified the public of the guidance in advance.

Second, HHS directed that the Department will only apply standards and practices, including in initiating a civil enforcement action or making an agency decision, that have been publicly stated in a way that would not cause unfair surprise. Of note, HHS defined “unfair surprise” to include when the Department initiates litigation following a lengthy period of conspicuous inaction.

Published on: December 2, 2020

CMS Releases Finalized Stark and Anti-Kickback Rules

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On November 20, 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the final rules amending the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statutes (AKS). Efforts to clarify these outdated laws began in 2018, with the goal to reduce regulatory obstacles for care coordination, following a general move toward value-based care. The Stark Law and AKS were initially created for a fee-for-service healthcare system, where there are financial incentives to provide more services to patients. However, the current U.S. healthcare system is shifting towards rewarding providers for keeping patients healthy and providing quality care, focusing on the value a payment has to a patient rather than the amount of services billed. The final rules offer increased flexibility to providers, reduce administrative burdens, and emphasize the interests of the patient.

The Physician Self-Referral Law, or the Stark Law, was initially enacted to prohibit physicians from making referrals to entities in which the physician has a financial relationship. The ambiguous language in the Stark Law created uncertainty as to whether certain relationships might violate the law and discouraged potential innovative relationships. As such, the final rule creates exceptions to the self-referral prohibitions for specific value-based payment arrangements among various providers and suppliers, and offers new guidance for providers with a financial relationship governed by the Stark Law. Under the rule, a value-based arrangement is one that provides at least one value-based activity to a patient between the value-based enterprise and at least one of its participants, or the participants in the same value-based enterprise. A value-based activity can mean the provision of a service, an action, or refraining from taking an action, so long as the activity is reasonably curated to achieve a value-based purpose. The exceptions apply to all patients, not just Medicare beneficiaries. The final rule creates three new exceptions to the Stark Law:

Value-based arrangements for participants in a value-based enterprise that is financially responsible for, and assumes the entire prospective financial risk, for the cost of all related patient care items and services for every patient;

Published on: November 30, 2020

HHS OIG Issues Fraud Alert for Physician Speaking Engagements

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On November 16, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a special fraud alert targeting remuneration associated with speaking arrangements paid for by pharmaceutical and medical device companies. The alert addressed both honoraria paid to the speaking physician and benefits provided to attendees, such as meals or alcohol.

OIG has taken the position that the fees paid to speakers and the benefits provided to attendees may constitute unlawful “remuneration” under the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) meant to induce or reward referrals. Pursuant to the AKS, it is unlawful to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer, or pay any remuneration to induce or reward, among other things, referrals for, or orders of, items or services reimbursable by a Federal health care program. According to OIG, pharmaceutical and medical device companies paid nearly $2 billion to physicians and health care professionals for speaker-related services in 2017, 2018, and 2019 combined.

OIG clarified that not every physician speaking arrangement violates the AKS and that it does not intend to discourage meaningful training or education. However, OIG outlined several factors that, in OIG’s view, increase the risk that an arrangement could violate the AKS. These factors include:

Published on: October 28, 2020

Purdue Pharma Settles OxyContin Investigation

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On October 21, 2020, Purdue Pharma pled guilty to three criminal charges as part of their $8 billion settlement surrounding the drug OxyContin, a drug that Purdue produced. The charges included: one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and two counts of conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute. OxyContin was one of the highly addictive opioids that has been blamed for starting the national opioid epidemic, which has been linked to over 470,000 deaths in the United States in the past twenty years.

In addition to admitting that Purdue purposefully impeded the Drug Enforcement Administration, Purdue also admitted to violating the Anti-Kickback Statute. The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits any physician or other individual from knowingly offering, paying, or soliciting remuneration to induce business payable by Medicare or Medicaid. Through a misleading program, Purdue induced physicians with payments to write more OxyContin prescriptions. Purdue also induced physicians to utilize an electronic health record that would influence the prescription of pain medicine, especially OxyContin.

In addition to admission of the above criminal charges, Purdue also entered a civil settlement with the government. The settlement will resolve the allegation that Purdue caused false claims to be submitted to government programs, in violation of the False Claims Act. It also civilly resolved Anti-Kickback Statute violations.

Published on: January 17, 2020

Approaching the New Targeted Probe and Educate Program

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) expanded its Targeted Probe and Educate (“TPE”) program on October 1, 2017. The goal of the TPE program is to help providers be more cognizant of their billing practices so that they may provide improved services in the future.

TPE review is a process where providers who have high denial rates or unusual billing practices compared to other providers in their field are reviewed. Simple claim errors are typically why providers have high denial rates. Some examples of these errors include: missing a physician signature, encounter notes not fully supporting eligibility, documentation not meeting medical necessity, or missing/incomplete certifications or recertification.

When a provider is chosen for the program, they receive a letter from their Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC). The TPE process involves an initial review, or “probe,” of 20-40 claims. If it is determined that the provider is non-compliant, a targeted, one-on-one education session will be offered to address errors found in the claims reviewed. Conversely, providers who are found to be compliant will not be reviewed again for at least one year. After the education session, providers have 45 days to make changes and improve. Those providers who continue to have high error rates after the first round must then proceed with a second round of reviewed claims and education. If high error rates continue, a third round will commence. After three rounds of TPE, if the provider continues to be non-compliant, they will be referred to CMS for further action. A provider can be removed from the review process at any point if they sufficiently demonstrate a significant reduction in their error rates.

Published on: July 27, 2018

Potential Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute Reforms to Support Coordinated Care

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

During a hearing on July 17, 2018, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Deputy Secretary Eric Hargan announced that HHS is interested in reforming the Stark law and the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). As value-based care is becoming more prominent in the healthcare system, coordinated care between providers is a necessity; but the Stark law and AKS are considered an impediment to coordinated care. Hargan contends that since the Stark law was created in a fee-for-service context, it “may unduly limit ways that physicians and healthcare providers can coordinate patient care [in a value-based system].”

HHS’s push for reform comes out of the “Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care,” which is an initiative launched by CMS that seeks to remove barriers to coordinated care while still upholding laws and rules that keep patients safe. According to Hargan, HHS is working on creating administrative rules to address these barriers.

Aside from the regulatory hurdles that the Stark law imposes on coordinated care, HHS is also concerned about the strict liability aspect of the Stark law. Strict liability imposes civil liability with monetary penalties onto the provider, regardless of the intent underlying the Stark law violation arises from an accident. HHS believes that strict liability turns providers away from entering into coordinated care arrangements, because the complexity of the Stark law may cause providers to violate it unintentionally and become liable. A suggested change from HHS is to define “noncompliance” in a clearer manner, which would allow providers to feel more at ease with participating in coordinated care.