Mark Schena, the President of Arrayit Corporation, has been found guilty by a jury for violations of the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act (EKRA), healthcare fraud, wire fraud, and securities fraud.
HHS-OIG issued a new Special Fraud Alert on relationships with “purported telemedicine companies” on July 20, 2022. The Special Fraud Alert comes on the heels of a nationally coordinated takedown charging dozens of individuals criminally for their participation in an allegedly fraudulent scheme related to telemedicine, laboratories, and durable medical equipment (“DME”). However, the alert comes after focus on telemedicine fraud cases in particular since 2019. The Special Fraud Alert identifies several characteristics of concern and common elements that individuals and companies should be aware of.…
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
On March 6, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a favorable advisory opinion that allows a nonprofit medical center (“Center”) to offer free, in-home follow-up care after a recent hospital admission for qualifying patients (the “In-Home Program”). In Advisory Opinion No. 19-03, the OIG concluded that although services furnished to qualifying patients under the In-Home Program would constitute remuneration to patients under the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and the Civil Monetary Penalties law (CMP), the OIG would not impose sanctions on the Provider due to the low-risk nature of the In-Home Program.
The Provider furnishes a range of inpatient and outpatient hospital-based services, and currently offers in-home care to qualifying high-risk patients suffering from congestive heart failure (CHF) who (i) are currently admitted as inpatients of the Provider or (ii) were admitted within the previous 30 days and are being treated by the Provider’s outpatient cardiology department (“Current Arrangement”). Under the Current Arrangement, a clinical nurse leader must determine that the patient is a high risk for inpatient readmission using an industry-standard risk assessment tool, the patient must be willing to enroll in the program after consultation with the clinical nurse leader, the patient must seek follow-up care at the Provider’s CHF center, and the patient must live in the Provider’s service area.
Continue Reading OIG Approves of Free In-Home Follow-Up Care Program Targeting High Risk CHF and COPD Patients in Advisory Opinion
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 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
In late August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a long-awaited decision in U.S. ex rel. Rose v. Stephens Institute that interprets key aspects of the implied false certification theory of False Claims Act (FCA) liability under the Supreme Court’s 2016 Escobar decision. As the Ninth Circuit explains in its decision, Escobar “unsettled” Ninth Circuit law related to the standard for proving falsity and materiality in an FCA case. The Ninth Circuit therefore sought to reconcile its precedents with Escobar in Rose, which was before it on an interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment sought by the defendant.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Issues Long-Awaited Interpretation of Escobar Two-Part Test
The Department of Justice (DOJ), recently intervened in a civil False Claims Act (FCA) case filed against Insys Therapeutics, Inc. (Insys) in the Central District of California that alleges FCA violations arising from the payment of kickbacks in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) as well as other fraudulent activities. Insys is an embattled Arizona-based pharmaceutical manufacturer of a highly-addictive sublingual opioid spray known as Subsys, and is currently the subject of a number of criminal and civil suits ongoing across the country (certain of which were consolidated into this case in connection with DOJ’s intervention). …
Continue Reading DOJ Intervenes in False Claims Act Case Against Insys Therapeutics
The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently resolved two health care fraud cases – one criminal and one civil – that demonstrate the government’s continued scrutiny of lavish meals and “speaker’s bureaus” sponsored by pharmaceutical and device manufacturers as potential avenues for the payment of kickbacks to physicians for referrals of health care items and services. These cases indicate the criminal and civil risk that providing lavish meals or purported speaker’s bureau payment can pose, and the corresponding need to proactively assess the legitimacy of such programs and events.
Continue Reading Recent Anti-Kickback Cases Emphasize Government Scrutiny of Speaker’s Bureaus and Lavish Meals Funded by Pharmaceutical and Device Manufacturers
Recent decisions in the Fourth and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals demonstrate the central role that the Supreme Court’s Escobar decision continues to play in fraud litigation despite, or as a result of, continued uncertainty as to the application of the “rigorous” and “demanding” materiality standard endorsed in that decision. The decisions discussed below provide…