Apr 192021

District Court Concludes Accurate PDE Data Can be “False Claims” Under the FCA

Jaime L.M. Jones, Brenna E. Jenny and Catherine Stewart
,

A district court in the District of New Jersey recently amended its dismissal of a qui tam suit to allow the relator to file a fourth amended complaint against a pharmacy asserting a new theory of liability that prescription drug event (“PDE”) data are “claims” under the FCA and accurate PDE data can be “false claims” under the FCA where a pharmacy pays kickbacks to its customers.  United States ex rel. Silver v. Omnicare Inc., No. 11-cv-01326, (D.N.J. Apr. 13, 2021).

When a pharmacy dispenses drugs to a Medicare beneficiary, it submits an electronic claim to the beneficiary’s plan sponsor, which periodically submits PDE data to CMS reflecting the pharmacy claims it has paid.  The FCA defines “claim” to include “any request or demand under a contract or otherwise for money or property presented to an officer, employee or agent of the United States or made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient, if the money or property is to be spent or used on the Government’s behalf to advance a Government program or interest.”  The defendant pharmacy argued that PDE data that plan sponsors submit to CMS are not claims, because these data do not “request or demand” payment.  DOJ filed a Statement of Interest urging the court to conclude that PDE data are “claims” under the FCA, because they are used to determine payment.  The court agreed with DOJ, citing to other courts that have reached the same conclusion, including a district court last month in the Southern District of New York.

The court then held that PDE data “tainted by kickbacks may constitute false claims under the FCA,” even where the PDE data are accurate.  The court was not clear about whether the theory is viable as an express or implied certification theory.  DOJ in its Statement of Interest maintains that the theory could proceed as either.  According to DOJ, CMS regulations require plan sponsors to include in their contracts with downstream entities like pharmacies a requirement that the downstream entity comply with all applicable federal laws.  This contractual obligation, according to DOJ, constitutes an express certification of compliance to the government.

The contemplated implied certification theory is difficult to discern.  The court did not explain precisely how pharmacy claims data submitted to plan sponsors—even if “tainted” by some underlying violation of the AKS—could, in turn, “taint” or render completely separate data submitted by those plan sponsors to CMS legally “false.”  DOJ’s Statement of Interest further muddies the water by incorrectly asserting that the pharmacy submitted the PDE data at issue: “in submitting PDEs, PharMerica impliedly certified its compliance with the AKS, among other federal statutes.”  The court’s scant reasoning has troubling implications.  If taken to its logical conclusion, seemingly any statutory or regulatory violation by a pharmacy relating to the drugs it dispenses “taints” a plan sponsor’s PDE data and creates a false claim under the FCA.

A copy of the opinion can be found here and a copy of DOJ’s Statement of Interest can be found here.

Jaime L.M. Jones

Chicago

jaimejones@sidley.com

Brenna E. Jenny

Washington, D.C.

bjenny@sidley.com

Catherine Stewart

Chicago

cstewart@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.

DOJ Reaches Settlement with OraPharma, Inc., Pushing Novel AKS Theory

Earlier this month the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts announced a $100,000 FCA settlement resolving novel allegations that a pharmaceutical company violated the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), and thereby caused the submission of false claims, through incentive compensation payments to its employees for conduct outside the scope of the employee relationship.