Fraud and Abuse

Subscribe to Fraud and Abuse

Are the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act an unconstitutional delegation of authority to private citizens? One federal court, accepting an invitation from a Supreme Court dissent, ruled the answer is yes.

In an opinion issued yesterday dismissing a False Claims Act case, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled that the statute’s provisions that permit a private citizen to bring a claim for a violation of the False Claims Act in the absence of intervention by the Federal Government are an unconstitutional delegation of executive authority that violated the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution.

According to the court, the qui tam provisions, as strengthened by the False Claims Act Amendments Act of 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-562), established a mechanism whereby “unaccountable, unsworn, private actors” are permitted “to exercise core executive power with substantial consequences to members of the public.” The court ruled that such a provision was unconstitutional as it permitted a private citizen to stand in as the “avatar in litigation” in which the interest of the United States is in issue.Continue Reading Are False Claims Act Whistleblower Cases Unconstitutional?

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) recently issued a favorable advisory opinion regarding whether a proposed patient assistance program (“PAP”) would run afoul of Federal antifraud statutes.

Under the proposed PAP, a nonprofit organization would subsidize certain cost-sharing obligations for low-income Medicare enrollees who have diabetes and reside in a specified rural area. Although the PAP displayed the potential for the generation of prohibited remuneration and did not fall under a safe harbor for either the Federal Anti-kickback Statute (AKS) or the beneficiary inducement provisions of the Civil Monetary Penalties statute (CMP), OIG stated that it would not impose administrative sanctions on the requesting entity.

While this advisory opinion is only applicable to the specific program at issue and can only be relied upon by the requestor, there are some potential considerations that could be applied more broadly to other arrangements.Continue Reading HHS OIG won’t enforce antifraud statutes against patient assistance program

In its recently released 2025 proposed Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (“MPFS”), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) proposed two important modifications to the Medicare 60-day overpayment refund rule—a new “identified overpayment” standard and codification of a 6-month timeframe to investigate and quantify an overpayment.

A product of the Affordable Care Act, the 60-day rule requires a person to report and return Part A and B overpayments within 60 days of identification. In 2016, CMS clarified that an overpayment is “identified” when a person, “through the exercise of reasonable diligence,” should have identified and quantified an overpayment. In the preamble to the 2016 rule, CMS established that “reasonable diligence” is demonstrated through a timely, good faith investigation, which is, at most, 6 months from the receipt of credible information of a potential overpayment.Continue Reading CMS Revisits Medicare Overpayment Standards in 2025 Physician Fee Schedule

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) recently issued a favorable advisory opinion that relates to whether two drug assistance programs would run afoul of the Federal anti-kickback statute (“AKS”).

In good news for the entity that requested the opinion, a United States corporate affiliate of a pharmaceutical manufacturer of the drug at issue (the “Requestor”), the OIG stated that it would not impose administrative sanctions for either program, despite the potential to generate prohibited remuneration under the AKS.  Although the advisory opinion is only applicable to the specific programs at issue and can be relied upon only by the Requestor, there are some potential considerations that could be applied more broadly to other arrangements.Continue Reading OIG Issues Favorable Opinion on Drug Assistance Programs

On April 8, 2024, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued Advisory Opinion No. 24-02, involving independent charity patient assistance programs (PAPs) associated with 12 specific diseases (the Disease Funds) operated by the Requestor. Each Disease Fund has a single donor–a pharmaceutical manufacturer that manufactures or markets a drug to treat the disease state associated with the fund.

Although the arrangement generates remuneration prohibited under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) if the requisite intent were present, the OIG determined it would not impose sanctions on the Requestor. In exercising its enforcement discretion, the OIG acknowledged the public policy benefits of independent charity PAPs while highlighting the importance of a charity’s independence from pharmaceutical manufacturer influence. Additionally, the arrangement does not implicate the federal Beneficiary Inducements Civil Monetary Penalties (CMP) law.

The OIG set an effective period for the opinion that expires January 1, 2027 due to upcoming reductions in Medicare Part D cost sharing associated with the Inflation Reduction Act. The reduction in beneficiary out-of-pocket expenses could ease demand for PAP subsidies and alter the OIG’s assessment of the benefits and risks of the arrangement.Continue Reading OIG Exercises Discretion in Independent Charity Patient Assistance Program

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services jointly announced a cross-government inquiry into the impact of private equity investment and other forms of “corporate greed” in the health care sector. As part of the announcement of this effort, the agencies produced a…

The Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that its False Claims Act (FCA) recoveries for civil cases raked in approximately $2.7 billion for fiscal year 2023, representing a $450 million jump from 2022 recoveries.  Of the $2.7 billion recovered by the DOJ for 2023, approximately $1.8 billion (67%) came from the health care sector.

The real headline, however, may be the record-setting number of new FCA cases initiated in 2023 ­–– 500 initiated by the government and 712 initiated by private relators, for a total 1,212 new cases, over 250 more than the next-highest year (2022). Previous trends aside, this signals busy times ahead for the FCA.Continue Reading DOJ Announces $2.7 Billion in FCA Recoveries and Enforcement Priorities

On October 26, 2023, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that a Miami federal grand jury returned an indictment charging a Medicare Advantage Organization’s (“MAO”) former director of Medicare risk adjustment analytics with six counts of criminal fraud. DOJ alleged that the MAO received more than $53 million in overpayments from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) due to false diagnoses submitted on reimbursement claims for beneficiaries enrolled in the MAO’s plans.

What’s perhaps most notable about this matter is that DOJ declined to prosecute the MAO because of the MAO’s significant and timely self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation efforts, in addition to the MAO’s agreement to repay CMS the full amount of the estimated overpayments.Continue Reading No Criminal Charges for Cooperative Medicare Advantage Organization

As promised back in April in an announcement of its plans to modernize compliance program guidance, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued the first of its new guidance documents for the health care industry on November 6, 2023. The first release is a general compliance program guidance (GCPG) designed to serve as a resource to all segments of the health care industry, regardless of the particular items or services offered.

In its newest release, OIG reiterates its view that the GCPG is by its very nature a voluntary guidebook that can act as a roadmap for a compliance program to follow, but that it is not binding on any individual or entity in the health care industry. This updated GCPG includes the following information for health care compliance programs, which we summarize further below: (1) key Federal authorities for entities engaged in health care business; (2) the seven elements of a compliance program; (3) adaptations for small and large entities; (4) other compliance considerations; and (6) OIG processes and resources.

Additional industry specific compliance guidance documents will be forthcoming, according to OIG, with its first updated guidance setting the stage for those to follow.Continue Reading HHS OIG Issues General Guidance as First Step in Effort to Modernize Compliance Guidance

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) issued an unfavorable advisory opinion (the “Opinion”) last Friday in which it refused to bless a proposed arrangement involving an intraoperative neuromonitoring (“IONM”) company (the “Requestor”) and various surgeons who perform procedures for which IONM is used, desiring to form a physician-owned entity (“Newco”) that would arrange to provide both the technical and professional components of IONM services (the “Proposed Arrangement”).

The Proposed Arrangement would essentially create a “turn-key” entity owned by the surgeons (the “Surgeon Owners”) that would subcontract to the Requestor and its affiliated physician practice (the “Practice”) “virtually all of the day-to-day requirements of an IONM business.” The Surgeon Owners would be responsible for forming Newco, preparing Newco’s internal governance documents, and determining the methodology for distribution of Newco’s profits amongst themselves. However, the Surgeon Owners would be passive investors, with limited involvement in Newco’s day-to-day operations.Continue Reading OIG Issues Unfavorable Advisory Opinion, Upholding Longstanding Contractual Joint Venture Concerns

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has released an advisory opinion permitting a technology company to charge health care providers “per booking” fees to participate in its online provider directory and to allow the same providers to bid on advertising that appears as specialized search results or banner ads within its digital “marketplace.” This is the second time that the OIG has opined on this particular arrangement, having approved an earlier, although slightly different, version of the arrangement by the same company in Advisory Opinion 19-04, which was issued in 2019.

In the most recent opinion, the OIG determined that, although the arrangement might violate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and the Beneficiary Inducement Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) law, the office would not enforce those statutes against the company because the nature of the revised fees and search functionality presents a sufficiently low risk of fraud and abuse. Important to the OIG’s decision was the requestor’s certification that the fees do not exceed fair market value of the requesting company’s services to providers related to its marketplace nor do they take into account the user’s insurance status or the volume or value of referrals to the providers.

The OIG’s opinion letter protects only the current arrangement described to it by the requestor, and the agency declined to opine on any continuing contracts under an older version of the program.Continue Reading OIG again approves online health directory’s use of appointment and advertising fees

On April 24, 2023, the OIG formally announced that it will be modernizing its existing Compliance Program Guidance (“CPG”).

The OIG has provided a CPG for various industry subsections since 1998.  Each CPG was developed in an effort to set forth voluntary compliance standards to be utilized in identifying and preventing fraud and abuse in federal health care programs.  In September 2021, the OIG published a request for information (“RFI”), wherein OIG requested insight on how providers use CPG and what improvements could be made to provide more relevant and accessible guidance.  

Providers and other industry representatives made recommendations including, but not limited to, creating industry-specific guidance, consolidating existing CPG, enabling user-friendly access to CPG, and ensuring ongoing updates to identify the OIG’s current positions on new and emerging risks in health care.Continue Reading OIG announces Modernization of Compliance Program Guidance

Note: This is Part 1 in a series of blog posts on developments from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regarding its commitments set forth under the Prescription Drug Under Fee Act Reauthorization Performance Goals and Clinical Trial Diversity and Modernization mandates established by Congress under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (FDORA), including developments on the intersection and use of digital health technology in clinical trials and clinical trial diversity.

The Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (FDORA) signed by President Biden on December 29, 2022, introduced significant changes to the way in which FDA will provide oversight for clinical trials as it pertains to “Clinical Trial Diversity and Modernization.” Under FDORA, among other things, FDA is required to issue guidance on decentralized clinical trials (which is a clinical trial in which some or all trial-related activities occur at a location separate from the investigator’s location) and to provide clarification on the use of digital health technologies (DHTs) in clinical trials.

Prior to the passage of FDORA, FDA set its sights on DHTs in the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) VII Commitment Letter, acknowledging the increased use of DHTs in drug development and the need for appropriate internal expertise and external guidance for their use and evaluation.Continue Reading New Opportunities, New Challenges: FDA Elaborates on use of Digital Health in Drug and Biological Product Development

On February 16, 2023, the Federal Bar Association (FBA) kicked off its sixth annual Qui Tam Conference with its customary “Year in Review” panel, which spotlighted the key False Claims Act (FCA) decisions and developments from 2022. Consistent with the annual press release and FCA recovery statistics issued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) earlier this month, the panel made clear that despite lower recoveries, 2022 was a busy and important year for FCA enforcement.

For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, total FCA recoveries surpassed $2.2 billion. Although this number represented a drop of more than 50% from 2021 when FCA recoveries exceeded $5.7 billion due to several high-profile settlements, 2022 saw a record amount of FCA enforcement activity, with 948 new FCA matters initiated, and 351 settlements and judgments under the FCA: the second-highest number recorded in a single year.Continue Reading FCA enforcement going strong in 2022, particularly in declined health care qui tams

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) has proposed a new rule that, among other changes, would amend the “identified overpayment” standard in the current regulations for Medicare to align with the False Claims Act’s (“FCA”) “knowingly” standard. The proposed rule plans to remove “the exercise of reasonable diligence” language from the relevant regulations and replace that language with the “knowingly” standard from the FCA.

The regulations at issue — 42 C.F.R. § 401.305(a)(2); 42 C.F.R. § 422.326(c) and 42. C.F.R. § 423.360(c) — are supposed to implement, in part, Section 6402(a) of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7k. This section of the ACA explains that if an overpayment under the various Medicare programs has been identified and has not been reported and returned in a set amount of time, then an enforcement action can be brought under the FCA. This section also states that the terms “knowing” and “knowingly” have the same meaning as under the FCA.

The FCA defines these terms to mean that a person has actual knowledge of information, acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of information, or acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of information; the terms do not require a specific intent to defraud. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(1).Continue Reading CMS Proposes Amending Identified Overpayment Rules to Align with FCA Knowledge Standard

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently weighed in on the causation standard for False Claims Act (“FCA”) cases premised on Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) violations. United States ex rel. Cairns v. D.S. Med. LLC, 42 F.4th 828 (8th Cir. 2022). The panel adopted a strict interpretation, finding that the government or whistleblowers must show a “but-for” causal relationship between kickbacks and claims for payment to establish the requisite link in the FCA liability chain, creating a circuit split on an issue that courts have struggled with for years.

The decision is notable for FCA defendants as it offers support for a defense they have long asserted, and that courts have been reluctant to condone, including an opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that refused to require a direct causal link between an AKS violation and a false claim.Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Finds “But-For” Causation Standard for AKS-Premised FCA Cases

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) recently published a Special Fraud Alert warning health care providers (e.g., prescribers, pharmacies, durable medical equipment providers, clinical laboratories) to steer clear of certain telemedicine arrangements and outlining seven “suspect” characteristics that may present heightened risk of fraud and abuse.

The alert coincides with a third round of criminal “telemedicine takedowns” announced by the Department of Justice (DOJ)  in the last several years, reflecting DOJ’s continued focus on identifying and dismantling fraudulent arrangements that exploit telemedicine technologies and related regulatory flexibilities in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Telemedicine technologies have created a multitude of opportunities for growth and innovation within the health care industry and are well-positioned to become an ongoing cornerstone of our health care delivery system. However, given the increased level of regulatory scrutiny of telemedicine arrangements, providers and telehealth technology companies, including drug and device manufacturers that offer telemedicine technologies (e.g., platforms, mobile applications) for prescribers and patients that facilitate virtual care,  should carefully plan and closely evaluate existing arrangements to ensure compliance with applicable state and federal laws and avoid implication amongst the recent uptick in enforcement.Continue Reading Telehealth Under Scrutiny: OIG Special Fraud Alert and DOJ Enforcement Highlights Suspect Characteristics Associated with High-Risk Telemedicine Arrangements

Supreme Court review of Rule 9(b)’s application in False Claims Act cases may finally be coming whether the Executive Branch likes it or not.

In January, the Supreme Court, which is considering a certiorari petition in Johnson v. Bethany Hospice and Palliative Care, LLC, asked the Solicitor General to weigh in on whether the Court should accept the case. The case presents the question of what Rule 9(b) requires in cases arising under the False Claims Act, which is an important threshold question in many False Claims Act cases resulting in significant motions practice.

As past Solicitors General have done before her, the current Solicitor General’s brief filed late on May 24 argued that the Supreme Court should not grant plenary review because there really isn’t a meaningful circuit split on the issue. The brief also argues that the case is not a good vehicle for Supreme Court review because the district court dismissed the relator’s case on the alternative ground that the relator had not adequately pleaded violations of the federal anti-kickback statute, an issue the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit did not reach on appeal.Continue Reading SCOTUS Review of Rule 9(b) in False Claims Act cases may be on the way

CMS recently issued updated Open Payments Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). The FAQs are revised periodically to reflect the most up to date program requirements. This latest revision both added and removed FAQs, and also included some general edits.

The following FAQs were added: #2014, #2015, #2016, #2017, #2018, #2019, #2020, #2021 and #2022. Each new FAQ is reproduced in full below. They provide additional guidance regarding topics such as archived reporting years, salaries paid to covered recipients, reporting of device identifiers, valuing long-term device loans, debt forgiveness, and the definition of Nurse Practitioner.

Additionally, the following FAQs have been removed from the FAQ document “due to being no longer applicable, redundant with another FAQ, or of low utility” (according to CMS):
Continue Reading CMS Issues Updated Open Payments FAQs

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) recently issued a favorable advisory opinion to a digital health company that offers direct monetary incentives to patients as part of a technology-enabled contingency management program for patients with substance use disorders.

Contingency management, also known as motivational incentives, is a treatment approach that utilizes tangible rewards to reinforce positive behaviors (e.g., abstinence from opioids) and to motivate and sustain behavioral health efforts (e.g., treatment adherence) in patients who suffer from substance use disorders. Because these monetary incentives are an integral part of the protocol-driven and evidenced-based program, the OIG concluded that it would not impose sanctions under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) or the Beneficiary Inducements Civil Monetary Penalty (“CMP”) provision, notwithstanding the involvement of federal health care program beneficiaries, providers/suppliers, and reimbursable services.

Nevertheless, the mitigating facts that motivated the OIG’s favorable treatment of the program here—namely, the clinical nature and independence of the program—could likely trigger compliance with other federal and state regulatory frameworks.
Continue Reading OIG blesses digital health substance use disorder treatment program paid for by providers and suppliers