On September 4, 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a $15.4 million settlement with pharmaceutical company Mallinckrodt ARD LLC (Mallinckrodt) to resolve alleged violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) in two whistleblower suits filed under the False Claims Act (FCA). The settlement addresses allegations of AKS violations between 2009-2013 by sales representatives of a company later acquired by Mallinckrodt via the “wining and dining” of physicians to induce Medicare prescriptions of that company’s drug. Interestingly, the settlements do not cover related allegations within those FCA suits that Mallinckrodt improperly used a patient assistance foundation to “pay illegal kickbacks in the form of copay subsidies” for the same drug.
Continue Reading Government Continues to Closely Scrutinize Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices

“A mere difference of opinion between physicians, without more, is not enough to show falsity.”

In a 3-0 decision issued September 9, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a three-year-old district court ruling in United States v. AseraCare, Inc. that a Medicare claim for hospice services cannot be deemed false under the False Claims Act (FCA) based on a difference in clinical judgment. This decision – apparently the first circuit-level determination of the “standard for falsity [under the FCA] in the context of the Medicare hospice benefit” – will affect all hospice providers, as the Department of Justice (DOJ) and whistleblowers will not be able to rely on disagreements between physician opinions as the basis for establishing falsity under the FCA. Instead, the Eleventh Circuit instructs that a claim for hospice reimbursement “cannot be “false” – and thus cannot trigger FCA liability – if the underlying clinical judgment does not reflect an objective falsehood.” The Eleventh Circuit’s decision emphasizes that reasonable differences of opinion between physician reviewers of medical documentation are not sufficient to suggest that the judgments concerning a particular patient’s eligibility for Medicare’s hospice benefit, or any claims submitted based on such judgments, are false for purposes of the FCA.
Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Endorses Objective Falsehood Standard for False Claims Cases Concerning Physician Judgment of Hospice Eligibility

In its second quarter Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) filing, Allscripts addressed its announced agreement in principle with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to resolve investigations into certain alleged practices of Practice Fusion, an electronic health records (EHR) vendor acquired by Allscripts in February 2018 for $100 million. Allscripts indicated the agreement is still subject to further negotiation and government approval, and would likely include additional non-monetary terms, including a deferred prosecution agreement, if a finalized settlement is reached.
Continue Reading Allscripts Announces $145 Million Preliminary Settlement with DOJ Related to an Investigation of Practice Fusion, a Recently Acquired EHR Company

On June 5, 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a global settlement with Insys Therapeutics (Insys) that preliminarily resolves criminal and civil cases against the opioid manufacturer in a number of jurisdictions. Under the terms of the settlement, Insys agreed to pay a total of $225 million – $195 million in civil remedies and $30 million in criminal restitution (comprising a $2 million fine and $28 million in forfeiture). In addition to the monetary penalties, Insys entered into a five year deferred prosecution agreement with DOJ, as well as a five year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) and Conditional Exclusion Release with the Office of Inspector General (OIG). Additionally, an operating subsidiary of Insys pleaded guilty to mail fraud.
Continue Reading DOJ Enters into $225 Million Settlement with Opioid Manufacturer to Resolve Criminal and Civil Investigations

On May 7, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) provided important new guidance addressing cooperation credit that may be available to defendants in False Claims Act (FCA) investigations (Guidance).  The Guidance – issued in the form of an update to DOJ’s Justice Manual – explains how defendants in an FCA investigation may be awarded credit by DOJ for certain disclosures, cooperation, and remedial activities.

The Guidance is intended to incentivize companies and individuals to (i) be forthcoming with the government upon discovery of potential FCA violations, (ii) aid ongoing FCA investigations, and (iii) undertake appropriate remedial actions in response to misconduct. The Guidance provides examples of actions that FCA defendants may be able to take to reduce potential penalties under the FCA. As discussed below, DOJ’s examples appear to re-emphasize DOJ’s focus on individual accountability for corporate wrongdoing.
Continue Reading Seeking to Incentivize Self-Disclosures, DOJ Issues Guidance on Credit for Cooperation with FCA Investigations

Since the beginning of 2019, federal and state authorities in Connecticut have announced a number of enforcement actions targeting alleged health care fraud in the state. These cases are a reminder to providers of heightened criminal and civil scrutiny of arrangements implicating health care fraud and abuse laws in the state, and also reflect the extensive federal-state cooperation between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Office of the Attorney General (AG) in investigating fraud and abuse. That federal-state cooperation is part of Connecticut’s Interagency Fraud Task Force, an initiative started in 2013 to prosecute fraud that includes multiple Connecticut agencies, as well as DOJ and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) within the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS).
Continue Reading Series of 2019 Enforcement Actions Highlight Continued Federal and State Scrutiny of Health Care Billing in Connecticut

On February 25, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a settlement with a urology group practice to settle allegations of False Claims Act (FCA) violations tied to the alleged submission of improperly unbundled Medicare claims. The pursuit and settlement of this FCA suit by the DOJ represents at least the second recent enforcement action targeting allegations of improper unbundled billing of services to Medicare, and may therefore indicate heightened governmental interest in those billing practices. See here for our analysis of the previous unbundled billing case.
Continue Reading Group Practice to Pay $1.85 Million Settlement Tied to Allegations of Improper Unbundled Billing

On February 19, 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it had intervened in a False Claims Act (FCA) whistleblower suit filed against Arriva Medical LLC (Arriva) and its parent that allegedly involves the submission of false claims for medically unnecessary glucometers, and alleged kickbacks to Medicare beneficiaries in the form of free glucometers and copayment waivers.  This intervention is particularly noteworthy for the fact that in addition to joining the suit, DOJ announced that it was adding a reimbursement consultant used by Arriva as a defendant to the FCA suit.
Continue Reading Department of Justice Intervenes in False Claims Act Suit, Adding Reimbursement Consultant Defendant

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced two high-dollar False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement actions involving allegedly fraudulent arrangements tied to the implementation and use of electronic health record systems (EHRs). The respective settlements enable recovery by DOJ of over $100 million, and immediately precede the government’s recent proposal of new rules to promote the interoperability of EHRs. The settlements thus serve as an important reminder of the importance of adhering to federal fraud and abuse laws and regulations as hospitals and other health care providers continue to implement EHR technology.
Continue Reading Department of Justice Announces Significant False Claims Act Settlements Tied to Electronic Health Records Arrangements

On November 30, 2018, the Solicitor General of the United States filed a long-awaited amicus brief in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s request for the government’s view of the False Claims Act (FCA) case U.S. ex rel. Campie v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. (see here for previous analysis of the Ninth Circuit decision in the case, and here for discussion of the Supreme Court’s request).

In its brief, the Solicitor General states that the conclusion of the Ninth Circuit – that “the fact of continued government payments did not by itself require dismissal of [the relator’s FCA] claims at the pleading stage” – was “correct and consistent with decisions issued by other circuits in comparable circumstances” and as a result no further review is warranted. The Solicitor General’s brief appears to advocate for a more narrow reading of the Ninth Circuit decision than many commenters have undertaken, explaining that “the relevance of a governmental payment decision turns on whether the government had ‘actual knowledge’ of violations at the time of payment” but in this case it is disputed what the government knew about alleged violations and when it learned about such violations.
Continue Reading In Amicus Brief, Government Discourages Supreme Court Review of Pro-Relator Ninth Circuit FCA Decision, but Pledges to Seek Dismissal of Case Upon Remand