On October 18, 2022, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced two settlements with CHC Holdings, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company doing business as Carter Healthcare (Carter), and two former senior corporate officers, resolving alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act (FCA), Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), and Physician Self-Referral Law (commonly referred to as the “Stark Law”). One case settled claims that Carter had made improper payments to referring physicians in Oklahoma and Texas, while the other case settled claims that Carter had made false billing claims in Florida. Both matters were initiated by qui tam whistleblower complaints filed under the FCA. Carter agreed to pay more than $30 million to resolve the allegations.

Continue Reading Home Health Company and Two Corporate Officers Settle False Claims Act Allegations for Over $30 Million

We follow up on our previous blog post concerning the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in favor of 340B hospitals. The Supreme Court previously held that “absent a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS may not vary the reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals” and therefore, that HHS exceeded its statutory authority by varying the 2018 and 2019 rates for 340B hospitals without first conducting such survey.

Continue Reading 340B Update: District Court Rejects 2022 Payment Methodology for 340B Hospitals Following Supreme Court Win

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently released a Data Brief summarizing the findings of a review of program integrity risks related to telehealth services reimbursed by Medicare during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (the Pandemic).[1] The OIG analyzed Medicare and Medicare Advantage claims data from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, focusing on providers that billed for telehealth services, with an emphasis on identifying providers that posed a high risk to the Medicare program.

Continue Reading OIG Releases Data Brief on Medicare Telehealth Program Integrity Risks During the First Year of the Pandemic

On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of “340B” hospitals in a notable statutory interpretation case concerning how the federal Medicare program reimburses hospitals for prescription drugs. The case, which was brought by the American Hospital Association, arises from reimbursement reductions imposed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2018 and 2019 on hospitals participating in the 340B program (which the Court noted are hospitals that “generally serve low-income or rural communities”). In those years, HHS sought to impose reductions in reimbursement due to favorable pricing available to 340B hospitals under that program. The hospitals challenged those reductions based on the process HHS followed when setting the reimbursement rates, claiming that HHS’s failure to conduct a survey of hospitals’ average acquisition costs for the drugs prevented HHS from varying reimbursement rates for this distinct group. Therefore, according to the hospitals, HHS was required to pay them based on the average sales price charged by manufacturers for the drugs.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Decides in Favor of 340B Hospitals Regarding Medicare Reimbursement Methodology

On April 27, 2022, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) published Advisory Opinion 22-08 (Advisory Opinion) in which it declined to impose sanctions against a federally qualified health center (Requestor) for an arrangement involving the loaning of smartphones to patients to allow those patients to receive telehealth services from the Requestor. The OIG concluded that although the arrangement would constitute prohibited remuneration under the Federal anti-kickback statute (AKS) and the beneficiary inducement prohibitions of the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (CMP), the limited scope of the arrangement and the safeguards in place did not warrant the imposition of sanctions.

Continue Reading Advisory Opinion 22-08: OIG Declines to Impose Sanctions for Loaning of Smartphones for Receipt of Telehealth Services

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently created a new webpage related to telehealth. The purpose of the webpage is to summarize the OIG’s telehealth oversight work to provide a summary of its findings and recommendations that can be used by policymakers and other stakeholders to evaluate potential changes to federal telehealth policies.

Continue Reading OIG Creates New Telehealth Resources Webpage

The federal Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently published a report (OIG Report) as part of a series of analyses of the expansion and utilization of telehealth in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency.  In its report, the OIG concludes that telehealth was “critical for providing services to Medicare beneficiaries during the first year of the pandemic” and that the utilization of telehealth “demonstrates the long-term potential of telehealth to increase access to health care for beneficiaries.” The OIG’s conclusions are notable because they come at a time when policymakers and health care stakeholders are determining whether and how to make permanent certain expansions of telehealth for patients nationwide.

Continue Reading OIG: Telehealth “Critical” to Maintaining Access to Care Amidst COVID-19

On March 16, 2022, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) published Advisory Opinion 22-05 (Advisory Opinion) in which it declined to impose sanctions against a medical device manufacturer (Requestor) that proposes to pay certain cost-sharing obligations of clinical trial participants, including Medicare beneficiaries. The OIG concluded that although the proposed arrangement (described below) would constitute prohibited remuneration under the Federal anti-kickback statute (AKS) and the beneficiary inducement prohibitions of the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (CMP), the low-risk nature of the proposed arrangement did not warrant the imposition of sanctions.

Continue Reading Advisory Opinion 22-05: OIG Declines to Impose Sanctions Against Device Manufacturer’s Medicare Cost-Sharing Subsidy in Clinical Trial

In a per curiam decision issued January 13, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal health care worker vaccine mandate rule, finding that the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was authorized by law to issue the rule.  See our previous analyses of the rule and subsequent litigation here and here for more background information on the stakes of this case.
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Worker Vaccine Mandate

On December 2, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a memorandum to state survey agencies indicating that it will not enforce its Interim Final Rule (the “Rule”) regarding health care worker vaccinations while there are court-ordered injunctions against the Rule in place.
Continue Reading CMS Issues Memorandum Stating It Will Not Enforce Its COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate While There are Court-Ordered Injunctions in Place