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

On March 24, 2023, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) issued Advisory Opinion 23-03 (the “Opinion”), in which it decided not to impose sanctions on an Arrangement to provide prepaid gift cards to patients for certain preventative screening tests (the “Arrangement”).Continue Reading New OIG Opinion Permits Gift Cards to Beneficiaries in Limited Circumstances

The Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) recently issued Advisory Opinion 22-08 (the “Advisory Opinion”), concluding that the provision of limited use smartphones by a federally qualified health center (“FQHC”) to existing, low-income patients (the “Arrangement”) lacked the intent required to violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”)[1] and was not likely to generate remuneration prohibited under the federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law prohibiting inducements to health care program beneficiaries (“Beneficiary Inducement CMP”)[2].Continue Reading OIG Issues Favorable Advisory Opinion For Federally Qualified Health Center’s Smartphone Loan Program

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently tossed a $5.5 million jury verdict finding that a physician violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by submitting claims for items and services ordered subsequent to a violation of the Federal health care program anti-kickback statute (“AKS”). According to the appellate court, the trial court’s jury instruction “brushed aside causation” and “misinterpreted” a 2010 amendment to the AKS.Continue Reading Eighth Circuit: In False Claims Act Cases Based On Kickback Violations, the Kickback Violation Must Be the “But For” Cause of the Items and Services Subject to the Claim

On November 20, 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) promulgated much-anticipated and significant final rules intended to “modernize” and “clarify” regulations regarding the Physician Self-Referral Law (“Stark Law Final Rule”) and the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS Final Rule”).  In the immediate future, Sheppard Mullin will post on this Healthcare Law Blog a comprehensive critical analysis of both the Stark Law Final Rule and the AKS Final Rule and their practical impacts.
Continue Reading Big Changes for Health Care Fraud and Abuse: HHS Gifts Providers Updates to the Stark Law and the AKS, Just in Time for the Holidays

On October 9, 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) released proposed rules in conjunction with HHS’ “Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care.” The Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care “aims to remove potential regulatory barriers to care coordination and value-based care created by four key Federal health care laws and associated regulations: (1) the physician self-referral law [(“Stark Law”)]; (2) the anti-kickback statute [(“AKS”)]; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 [(“HIPAA”)]; and (4) the rules… related to opioid and substance use disorder treatment.”
Continue Reading CMS and OIG Propose Regulatory Changes Impacting the Scope of the Stark Law and the Federal Health Care Program Anti-Kickback Statute

In Advisory Opinion No. 18-11, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (the “OIG”) addressed a Medicaid managed care organization’s (“MCO”) proposal to pay its contracted providers and clinics (“Network Providers”) to increase the amount of Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (“EPSDT”) services they provide to the MCO’s Medicaid members. Under the State’s MCO program, MCOs are required to provide EPSDT services and face liquidated damages for failing to do so. Under the proposed arrangement, the MCO would provide per member incentive payments (“Incentive Payments”) to Network Providers that meet certain benchmarks for increasing the amount of EPSDT services they provide to MCO members. The amount of the Incentive Payments would be determined based on the percentage increase of EPSDT services provided to the MCO’s existing members from one year to the next.
Continue Reading How Broad is the Managed Care Safe Harbor?