Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS)

Subscribe to Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) via RSS

Earlier this month, the Eleventh Circuit (the “Court”) issued a decision in a False Claims Act (“FCA”) case against a medical supplier that offers welcome clarity for companies facing whistleblower allegations. In Vargas ex rel. Alvarez v. Lincare, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9084 (11th Cir.), the Court emphasized high pleading requirements FCA plaintiffs must satisfy to survive a motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court held that it is not enough to allege a general scheme; the FCA plaintiff must also plead, with detail, how the scheme caused the actual submission of false claims to the government. The decision is especially significant in the healthcare context with respect to Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) based FCA cases. The court made clear that the plaintiff must do more than include conclusory allegations that one purpose of the payment was to induce referrals—it must include details as to the defendant’s intent.Continue Reading Inferential Leaps and Conclusory Kickback Allegations Remain Verboten in False Claims Act Complaints

Yesterday, the OIG released a Special Fraud Alert related to: (1) marketing arrangements between Medicare Advantage Organizations (“MAOs”) and health care professionals (“HCPs”), and (2) arrangements between HCPs and MA plan agents and brokers. In the Alert, OIG states that these types of arrangements may implicate the Federal anti-kickback statute (the “AKS”) and could result in unfair competition and improper steering of Medicare beneficiaries. Despite flagging these concerns, the Alert fails to offer specific, practical guidance on the types of arrangements that would or would not violate the law, and therefore does little to alleviate industry-wide confusion as to how to compliantly engage in beneficiary outreach and support.Continue Reading Special Fraud Alert: Suspect Payments in Marketing Arrangements Related to Medicare Advantage and Providers

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed an appeal by the Pharmaceutical Coalition for Patient Access (“PCPA”) that challenged a negative opinion issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) concerning pharmaceutical manufacturers’ offers of cost-sharing subsidies to Medicare Part D (“Part D”) beneficiaries. The opinion under review was Advisory Opinion No. 22-19,[1] which we previously wrote about[2] and in which the OIG advised that if pharmaceutical manufacturers offered the proposed cost-sharing subsidies to Part D beneficiaries via PCPA, they could be subject to liability under the Federal health care program Anti-Kickback Statute (the “AKS”), even though the proposed subsidies would not violate the Civil Monetary Penalty Law’s Beneficiary Inducement Prohibition (“BIP”).Continue Reading District Court Elucidates the Meaning of “to Induce” Under the Federal Health Care Program Anti-Kickback Statute

Late last week, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) posted Advisory Opinion No. 23-07 affirming the broad protection available for compensation to employed physicians under the bona fide employee exception and safe harbor to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (the “AKS”). The opinion highlights flexibility for healthcare providers seeking to compensate employees in ways that align incentives with their employers, and particularly for physician practices to align employed physicians with use of the practices’ ambulatory surgery center (“ASC”) capabilities.Continue Reading OIG Confirms the Broad Protection of Employee Safe Harbor