Feb 232012

CMS Issues Guidance on Reporting and Refunding of Overpayments Actionable Under the FCA

Scott D. Stein
, , , ,

Posted by Scott Stein, Barbara Cammarata and Catherine Starks

On February 16, 2012, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) released a long-awaited proposed rule (“Proposed Rule“) to implement the overpayment reporting and refund provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), which are enforceable in a “reverse false claims” action under the False Claims Act.

Under section 6402 of PPACA, providers and suppliers who have been overpaid by Medicare or Medicaid must report and return the overpayment within the later of: (1) 60 days of the date on which the overpayment is “identified;” or (2) the date any corresponding cost report is due, if applicable, or face reverse false claims liability under the FCA. Although the duty to report and return an overpayment is triggered, in the alternative, from the date the overpayment is “identified,” Congress did not define “identified.” The Proposed Rule defines the term by reference to the FCA’s scienter provisions. Specifically, the Proposed Rule would deem an overpayment to be “identified” when the person has actual knowledge of the existence of the overpayment or acts in reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of the overpayment, which is how the FCA defines a “knowing” violation of the Act. This standard mirrors that provided in the CMS’ Physician Payment Sunshine Act proposed rule whereby an applicable manufacturer must report payments or transfers of value to a covered recipient when the applicable manufacturer has actual knowledge of or acts in reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of the identity of the covered recipient.

According to CMS, it incorporated the FCA’s mens rea standard to incentivize providers and suppliers “to exercise reasonable diligence to determine whether an overpayment exists.” In particular, CMS stated that the provision is designed to prevent providers and suppliers from avoiding their obligation to identify potential billing issues through, e.g., self-audits or compliance checks. The Proposed Rule does not otherwise provide guidance as to what steps providers should take to uncover potential billing issues, beyond the requirement to exercise “reasonable diligence,” and that investigations, once initiated, should be conducted “with all deliberate speed.” As evidenced by the case law interpreting the FCA’s “knowingly” standard , there is ample room for CMS and providers and suppliers to disagree regarding whether providers and suppliers have exercised “reasonable diligence” to identify potential overpayments.

Increasing the stakes for providers and suppliers in the event that they fail properly to “identify” an overpayment is the Proposed Rule’s adoption of an FCA-like 10-year “look-back” period. This provision requires providers and suppliers (and allows CMS and qui tam relators) to review any potential overpayments in the prior 10-year period (in contrast to the existing four year CMS reopening period and the three year Recovery Audit Contractor “look back” period). The 10 year look-back period obviously raises the spectre of significant financial liability for providers and suppliers.

As for how overpayments are to be reported, the Proposed Rule adopts CMS’ existing process for voluntary refunds, renamed the “self-reported overpayment refund process” set forth in Publication 100-06, Chapter 4 of the Medicare Financial Management Manual. CMS states that it intends to publish a new form specifically for reporting overpayments under PPACA.

The Proposed Rule also clarifies the relationship between the government’s various self-reporting mechanisms. First, if a provider or supplier reports a violation of the Stark Law through the Medicare Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol, this suspends the obligation to return overpayments, but not to report. In contrast, a provider’s or supplier’s report of potential fraud through the OIG Self-Disclosure Protocol1 both suspends the obligation to return overpayments once the OIG has acknowledged receipt of the submission,2 and constitutes a report for purposes of the Proposed Rule, provided such notification is consistent with the proposed deadlines.

CMS also offers guidance on what constitutes “overpayments” in the context of an alleged violation of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”). The Proposed Rule notes that that while some overpayments may arise from potential violations of the AKS, third parties to the kickback arrangement do not have a duty to report or return such overpayments unless they have “sufficient knowledge of the arrangement to have identified the resulting overpayment.” In that case, the third party must report the overpayment to CMS, but only the parties to the kickback scheme would be expected to return the overpayment and not the innocent third-party provider or supplier, “except in the most extraordinary circumstances.” While the rule does not expressly apply to manufacturers, this proposed interpretation seems to establish a clear link between claims “tainted” by manufacturer kickbacks and “overpayment” liability. A separate post on this topic will be forthcoming.

While the Proposed Rule expressly applies only to Medicare Part A and B providers and suppliers, and is not final, CMS “remind[s] all stakeholders that even without a final regulation,” they “could face potential False Claims Act liability . . . for failure to report and return an overpayment.”

Comments on the Proposed Rule are due by April 16, 2012.

1 Id. at 9,182.

2 Id. at 9,183.

Scott D. Stein

Chicago

sstein@sidley.com

You might also like
DOJ Reaches Settlement with Laboratory Over Commission-Based Compensation Arrangements with Independent Contractors, Medical Necessity

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a $5.9 million FCA settlement resolving allegations that Genotox Laboratories Ltd., a toxicology and pharmacogenetics testing laboratory: 1) violated the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), and thereby caused the submission of false claims, through commission-based compensation arrangements with its independent contractors, and 2) submitted claims to federal healthcare programs for unnecessary drug tests.  In parallel proceedings, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas and Genotox entered into an eighteen-month Deferred Prosecution Agreement to resolve a criminal investigation into the same conduct.  The settlement highlights DOJ’s ongoing interest in pursuing independent contractor arrangements that do not fit within a safe harbor to the AKS, where such relationships are also accompanied by conduct that traditionally attracts enforcement scrutiny, such as submission of claims for medically unnecessary services.

Sixth Circuit Adopts Limited Definition of AKS “Remuneration,” Robust Standard for Causation in AKS Qui Tams

On March 28, 2023, the Sixth Circuit issued a notable decision rejecting broad theories from DOJ and relators about (1) the definition of remuneration under the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and (2) the causation requirement for AKS violations that trigger FCA liability.  See United States ex rel. Martin v. Hathaway, No. 22-1463 (6th Cir. 2023).  On the first, the court held that “remuneration” under the AKS “covers just payments and other transfers of value,” not “any act that may be valuable to another.”  On the second, the court held that FCA liability attaches only if the claim would not have been submitted but for the AKS violation.

Second Circuit Leaves Open Novel Legal Theory that Flawed AI is a “Worthless Service”

In a decision issued last week, the Second Circuit was faced with the novel legal theory that use of flawed artificial intelligence systems can constitute a “worthless service” for purposes of FCA liability.  See Doe v. eviCore Healthcare MSI, LLC, No. 22-530-CV, 2023 WL 2249577 (2d Cir. Feb. 28, 2023).  The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to satisfy the heightened Rule 9(b) pleading standard but did not reach the merits, leaving open the question of whether such a theory is viable under the FCA.