Breaking Down Legal Buzzwords: Fair Market Value & Commercial Reasonableness

book-stacks-colorful.jpgBy: Jackie Bain

Federal fraud and abuse laws often require that arrangements between health care providers are “fair market value” and “commercially reasonable.” And while these terms look like legalese and are easy to overlook, in fact, they are important. For example, the Federal Stark law requires strict compliance with its terms. A physician may enter into a prohibited arrangement with the intention that it falls within an exception to the law. If, however, the arrangement is not fair market value, the physician’s arrangement would violate the law, subject the physician to fines and risk the physician’s ability to participate in Medicare. Continue reading

Recovery Business Industry Forced to Grow Up Fast

bcbs lawsuitBy: Jeff Cohen

When Horizon Blue Cross/Blue Shield of New Jersey blasted Avee Laboratories in connection with a variety of business practices, some of which included kickback violations (in connection with the provision of POCT cups), businesses in the drug and alcohol recovery space took notice.  With the recent FBI raid on a Palm Beach County sober house and the amped up attention of managed care payers to clinical lab testing, the industry is reeling!  The good news, however, is that these recent developments, along with increased payor scrutiny (and payment denial!), is a call to compliance that has long seemed inapplicable to an industry that has been able for many years to operate with simplicity not found in other segments of the healthcare business community.  Where facilities once viewed DCF as the only regulatory parent they had to please, they are now learning there is a far greater degree of regulatory complexity to be considered; and they are rushing towards compliance.Continue reading

Point of Care Test Cups Held to be a Prohibited Benefit to Physicians Who Could Not Otherwise Bill for Them

pee in a cupBy: Jackie Bain

When a physician cannot bill for test results, and a company offers to give that physician those test results for free, a Florida Federal Court has ruled that the company is offering the physician prohibited remuneration.  On May 5, 2014 the Middle District of Florida granted partial summary judgment on the latest motion in a contentious litigation between Ameritox Ltd. and Millennium Laboratories, Inc.  Ameritox and Millennium are competitors and clinical laboratories that screen urine specimens for the presence of drugs.

Millennium provided free point of care testing cups to physicians, who use the cups for initial testing and then return the cups back to Millennium for confirmation tests.  Physicians do not bill patients or insurance companies for the point of care tests.Continue reading

When is Marketing An Illegal Kickback?

kickbackHealthcare professionals and businesses are routinely barraged with people who claim to be able to generate business for them.  The business of healthcare is like none other in its abhorrence of anything that even smells like payment for patient referrals, so professionals and businesses alike have to be extremely cautious and well advised in crafting marketing and related business-enhancing relationships.

The federal Anti Kickback Statute (“AKS”) is a criminal law that arises in the context of individuals and entities that pay or receive anything of value in exchange for referring a patient whose care is compensated in any way by a state or federal healthcare program.  Violations of the statute are punishable by a maximum fine of $25,000 and/or imprisonment up to five years.  Federal courts have applied the statute to any arrangement where even one purpose of the arrangement was to obtain money for the referral of services or an attempt to induce additional referrals. Its exceptions (“Safe Harbors”) include permissible arrangements for independent contractors and employees, both of which are elusive because of the common requirement that the arrangement not vary based on the value or volume of business between the parties.  The “value or volume” aspect of the regulations flies in the face of percentage based compensation arrangements (which seem to be the rule in marketing relationships).Continue reading

Montana Hospital Fined for Payments to Doctors

300x300_alertThe Justice Department settled a case against a Montana hospital for nearly $4 Million based on allegations that the hospital improperly paid physicians who referred to the hospital.  The allegations arise out of a medical office building project in which the hospital and referring physicians were co-owners.  The particular areas of wrongdoing targeted by the DOJ included below market lease rates.  The case is odd in that (1) it is not the usual “pay for referral” sort of case traditionally pursued against parties, and (2) ensuring fair market value and commercial reasonableness in rental arrangements of healthcare providers is a key element in terms of compliance.

OIG Frowns Again on Proposed Company Model Arrangements with Anesthesiologists

anesthIn December, 2012, the OIG reviewed and frowned upon two proposed scenarios, each of which had the effect of shifting to ASC-owner/surgeons a portion of the fees earned from anesthesia services.  The OIG has done it again!

In an era of tremendous stress in the healthcare marketplace, it’s not surprising that some surgeons were willing to push the envelope to capture anesthesia fees they otherwise would not receive.  Traditionally, physician-owned surgery and endoscopy centers contract with anesthesia providers on an exclusive basis and let the anesthesiologists separately bill for anesthesia services.  Anesthesiologists kept whatever was collected for anesthesia services; and surgeons kept whatever was paid for their services.  Plus, if the surgeon was also an owner of the center, the surgeon received a portion of the profits left over from the facility or technical fee.  In the past several years, however, center-owning surgeons are often looking for ways to share anesthesia fees.  The latest OIG Advisory Opinion (13-15) may cause some surgeons to back down or to reevaluate the long-term viability of the so-called “Company Model.” Continue reading

Rehab Centers at Risk for Routine Copay/Deductible Waiver

pillDrug and alcohol treatment centers are often faced with the business decision of whether to waive copay and deductible obligations.  For many patients in one of the most vulnerable times of their lives, copay and deductible waiver can mean the difference between getting needed treatment or not!  The well intentioned desire of the treatment center to lower this barrier to entry may, however, expose the center to serious legal liability.

Though many treatment centers do not accept governmental payment (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, CHAMPUS and TriCare), some do and all need to understand the thinking of governmental regulators and private insurers on the issue.  In 1994 the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (the “OIG”) issued a Special Fraud Alert stating, in essence, copayment waiver for any reason other than the patient’s demonstrated inability to pay is fraudulent!   Continue reading

OIG Comes Down Hard on Physician Owned Distributorship (POD) Arrangements

OIG crestOn October 24, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released its long-awaited report on the prevalence of physician-owned distributorships (PODs) and the increased costs incurred by Medicare following the rise of these entities. The U.S. Senate and OIG’s investigation of PODs began in earnest in 2011 with the release of the Senate Finance Committee’s POD overview and inquiry.1 This was followed by a Special Fraud Alert issued by OIG, which characterized PODs as “inherently suspect under the anti-kickback statute.”2

Cutting Patients a Break: Your Financial Hardship Policy

financial hardshipBy David Hirshfeld

with Jean Acevedo, Guest Contributor

As premiums and deductibles rise and coverage shrinks, more and more patients have difficulty paying for their health care.  You can provide financial relief to your patients if you wish, but you should only do so in accordance with a uniform hardship policy.

As a general rule, the practice should not routinely waive co-pays or deductibles, or offer discounts based on a patient’s statement that the patient is suffering from financial hardship.  If the practice does routinely offer discounts or waivers of deductibles without properly investigating a patient’s financial wherewithal, the practice runs the risk of violating its payor contracts, being accused of committing insurance fraud, and/or paying an illegal kickback to induce patients to come to the practice.  Some payor contracts require the practice to bill the payor the lowest rate that the practice bills any of its patients, a so-called “most favored nation provision.”  Typical Medicare participation agreements are subject to this type of provision.  If the practice waives deductibles or co-pays, then insurers often take the position that the amount being billed by the practice to the insurer ought to be reduced by the amount waived.  In addition, a regulator could conceivably accuse the practice of waiving co-pays and deductibles as a means of inducing patients to seek treatment from the practice in violation of anti-kickback laws.Continue reading

OIG Shoots Down Physician Owned Distributorships (PODS)

Physician owned distributorships (PODs) have been the source of considerable controversy for years.  A couple years ago, they caught the attention of Congress.  Now, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) has issued a Fraud Alert making clear their dislike of PODs and sending a clear shot across the bow of those who are in that industry.

PODs distribute various things, most commonly surgical implants and devices, that are reimbursed by insurers.  A patient needs a spinal rod, a surgical implant/device company makes it and a distributor rep distributes it.  Device/implant companies usually contract with distributorships to sell their products.  Distributorships contract with reps who are paid commissions for sales.  Surgeons who actually order the devices sometimes think “Since I’m the one doing the surgery and ordering all this stuff, why can’t I earn something from that?  I’m not ordering anything I don’t need or that I don’t think is good for the patient.”  PODs are one way for physicians to financially benefit from the sales of devices and items their patients need, but they have never been more controversial than now.Continue reading