Yesterday DOJ announced its first settlement under the Department’s new “Cyber-Fraud Initiative.” This initiative, announced in October 2021, aims to “utilize the False Claims Act to pursue cybersecurity related fraud by government contractors and grant recipients.” However, as discussed further here, in addition to targeting traditional government contractors, the initiative presents broader opportunities for DOJ to use the FCA to address data protection practices by healthcare providers.
The healthcare industry is consistently the recipient of disproportionate oversight under the FCA, and thus it is perhaps no surprise that DOJ’s first settlement under the Cyber-Fraud Initiative was with a healthcare provider. As announced here, a healthcare provider furnishing medical services on air force bases paid $930,000 to resolve allegations that it “violated the False Claims Act by falsely representing to the State Department and the Air Force that it complied with contract requirements relating to the provision of medical services.” The settlement also resolved allegations relating to controlled substances. (more…)
On February 23, 2022, a district court in the Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss a qui tam suit premised on alleged Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) violations, holding that “even some fair-market-value payments will qualify as illegal kickbacks.” See United States ex rel. Chao v. Medtronic PLC, No. 17-cv-1903 (C.D. Cal.).
The relator’s operative complaint argued that the defendant, a manufacturer of medical devices, violated the FCA by offering kickbacks in various forms to reward physicians for using the defendant’s devices. Among other arguments, the defendant urged the court to dismiss the complaint because the relator failed to allege that certain payments to physicians for proctoring other physicians on how to use the medical devices exceeded fair market value (“FMV”). As such, the defendant contended, the relator failed to address the potential applicability of the AKS’s personal services safe harbor. (more…)
In a recent 2-1 decision, the Fourth Circuit joined every other circuit to have considered the issue in applying Safeco’s “reckless disregard” standard to legally false FCA claims based on alleged violations of ambiguous laws and regulations. Under Safeco, courts ask whether a defendant’s interpretation of the ambiguous law or regulation at issue was objectively reasonable and whether authoritative guidance might have warned the defendant away from that interpretation. The Fourth Circuit found that the Safeco standard “duly ensures that defendants must be put on notice before facing liability for allegedly failing to comply with complex legal requirements. Without such notice, defendants are not likely to receive due process.”
Last week one of the first qui tam suits alleging manipulation of the billing rules for a type of remote patient monitoring was unsealed, following the relator’s voluntary dismissal. See United States ex rel. Mathurin v. Vector Remote Care LLC (Nov. 18, 2020 E.D.N.Y.). Relators not infrequently voluntarily dismiss their case when DOJ informs them that it lacks merit. Whatever the merits of this one, given the explosive increase in remote patient monitoring during the pandemic and the predicted future increases in these patient care modalities, we expect continued whistleblower activity focused on this space. Of course, such allegations will be met with substantial challenges to establishing that these kinds of issues in fact fail to comply with the applicable coverage and reimbursement criteria or render any claims materially false.
Yesterday HHS-OIG updated its Work Plan to add yet one more audit of potential misconduct relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. This project, titled Hospital’s Compliance With the Provider Relief Fund Balance Billing Requirement for Out-of-Network Patients, focuses on compliance with a clause in the Provider Relief Fund Terms and Conditions that restricts balance billing for COVID-19 patients. That clause states: [F]or all care for a presumptive or actual case of COVID-19, Recipient certifies that it will not seek to collect from the patient out-of-pocket expenses in an amount greater than what the patient would have otherwise been required to pay if the care had been provided by an in-network Recipient.” (more…)
The Eleventh Circuit recently held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to monetary awards in non-intervened FCA actions—the first federal court of appeals directly to address the application of this constitutional protection in non-intervened cases. See Yates v. Pinellas, No. 20-10276 (11th Cir.). However, the panel concluded that while the amount of the fine in this case was “very harsh,” it was not unconstitutionally excessive.
In Yates v. Pinellas, following the government’s declination, the district court imposed a total monetary award of $1,179,266.62 under the FCA based on the defendant’s submission of laboratory test claims to Medicare without a proper CLIA certificate. Specifically, the jury found that the defendant violated the FCA on 214 occasions and that the United States had incurred $755.54 in damages. The court then imposed treble damages of $2,266.62 and statutory minimum penalties of $5,500 for each of the 214 violations, or $1,177,000, for a grand total of $1,179,266.62. The defendant moved for remittitur, arguing that this amount constituted an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court rejected the argument. (more…)
On January 7, 2022, a district court in the Western District of Kentucky dismissed DOJ’s implied false certification theory relating to allegedly medically unnecessary genetic tests, holding that the prosecutors failed to adequately plead materiality. In so holding, the court set forth a novel test for materiality that forecloses the government’s ability to argue that certain regulations are per se material based on the government’s characterization of them as conditions of payment. Instead, plaintiffs must still plead “specific facts regarding the effect of a violation of that regulation” to survive dismissal. (more…)
Since the Supreme Court in Escobar stated that continued payment by the government is “very strong evidence” that the alleged violations are not “material” under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), courts have grappled with how much weight the government’s continued payment should be accorded when assessing “materiality.” Courts have adopted varying approaches, with no obvious majority position. (more…)
On December 2, 2021, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a press release announcing that Flower Mound Hospital Partners (“Flower Mound”), a partially physician-owned hospital, agreed to pay just over $18 million to resolve allegations that it had violated the False Claims Act by submitting claims that violated the Stark Law and the Anti-Kickback Statute. (more…)
Over the past two months, DOJ has filed complaints-in-intervention in two FCA cases premised on allegedly fraudulent diagnosis codes submitted to CMS as a result of retrospective chart reviews. These cases demonstrate how DOJ has begun to explore new legal theories that articulate a narrower view on the legality of retrospective chart reviews designed to add diagnosis codes. (more…)