Sidley lawyers Jaime L.M. Jones, Brenna E. Jenny, and Catherine D. Stewart recently published an article in Bloomberg Law entitled Tips for Responding to a DOJ Inquiry Into Pandemic Billing. The Department of Health and Human Services extended significant billing flexibility to providers during the COVID-19 public health emergency, and law enforcement can be expected to closely examine how providers have exercised those more relaxed rules. The article offers tips for the in-house legal and compliance functions of healthcare providers as to how they can best position their organizations for successfully engaging with DOJ and state attorneys general on False Claims Act investigations relating to the use of pandemic billing flexibilities.
A copy of the article is available here.
A recent settlement reinforces the potential liability facing private equity investors in the life sciences industry. As we previously reported, late last year The Gores Group (“Gores”) entered into a $1.5 million settlement agreement with the United States to resolve claims that the alleged off-label promotion by its portfolio company of combination drug-medical device systems for pediatric patients resulted in the submission of false claims to federal healthcare programs. Last month, Gores entered into a separate $1.5 million settlement agreement with certain states to resolve claims that the same alleged conduct resulted in the submission of false claims to state Medicaid programs. See U.S. ex rel. Johnson v. Therakos, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-1454 (E.D. Pa., filed Mar. 22, 2012). The participating states in the more recent settlement have sixty days to agree to the terms of that agreement; thus far at least California has joined. The claims resolved in these settlements arose from a qui tam suit.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently ruled on a summary judgment motion in a case that has been pending in the federal courts since 2002, involving alleged conduct by the defendant drug manufacturer from 1996-2004, when the pharmaceutical industry and compliance programs were vastly different than they are in 2020. U.S. ex rel. Gohil v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc’s, No. 02-cv-02964 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2020). In its ruling, the court adopted an expansive definition of remuneration and a low bar to satisfy the causation element of FCA claims premised on underlying alleged violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute. On this basis, the court is allowing the relator to proceed to trial on allegations that his former employer caused the submission of false claims by paying kickbacks in the form of fees to physicians to participate in advisory boards and speaker programs, educational grants, and meals and gift baskets, while granting summary judgment for the defendant based on allegations related to preceptorships and other alleged kickbacks.
The 2015 Balanced Budget Act (BBA) requires that federal agencies make inflationary adjustments to civil monetary penalties on a yearly basis to account for inflation using calculations based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index. On June 19, 2020, DOJ issued a final rule that will increase the civil penalties in FCA actions for penalties assessed after this date. The prior minimum False Claims Act penalty of $11,181 will be increased to $11,665 per claim. The maximum penalty will also increase from $22,363 to $23,331 per claim. The revised civil penalties, once adopted, will apply to all assessments of FCA civil penalties after the effective date, including penalties associated with violation predating the adjustment, but assessed on or after the date that the increases go into effect.
A specialty laboratory recently agreed to pay up to $43 million to resolve FCA claims based on allegations raised internally and later in a whistleblower complaint filed by its former Chief Medical Officer (CMO). The defendant, Genova Diagnostics Inc. (“Genova”), provides laboratory testing services focused on potential interactions between the environment and the gastrointestinal, endocrine, and immune systems. The tests are used by functional medicine specialists to help develop treatment regimens.
The Third Circuit recently held that relators are not automatically entitled to an in-person hearing when the government moves to dismiss a qui tam suit over the relator’s objection. U.S. ex rel Chang v. Children’s Advocacy Center of Delaware, No. 18-2311 (3d Cir. Sept. 12, 2019). Weih Chang filed qui tam lawsuit in 2015 alleging the Children’s Advocacy Center of Delaware had misrepresented material information when applying for governmental funding. After a lengthy investigation, the United States declined intervention and moved to dismiss under the statutory provision that allows dismissal, “notwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the action if the person has been notified by the Government of the filing of the motion and the court has provided the person with an opportunity for a hearing on the motion.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A). The district court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the government had shown a legitimate interest in dismissing the suit and Chang had not met the burden of showing that the move to dismiss was arbitrary or capricious. Chang appealed, arguing that he had a statutory right to an in-person hearing prior to dismissal and that at the hearing he could have introduced evidence to show that the dismissal was arbitrary and capricious. Id. at *5-6. The Third Circuit affirmed the district court opinion, holding the court had not erred in granting dismissal without conducting an in-person hearing. Id. at 8.
In Carrel v. AIDS Healthcare Foundation, No. 17-13185 (August 7, 2018) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendant on Anti-Kickback Statute-based FCA claims, holding that incentives to employees for referring patients for its services were covered by the employee safe harbor to the Anti-Kickback Statute, and that these payments in particular served the congressional intent of the Ryan White Act to provide AIDS patients with ease of access to services. The Court also upheld the prior dismissal of all other allegations for a lack of particularity, noting that the only instances that relators alleged with particularity were actually covered “services” under the Ryan White Act and that they would not “infer fraud from instances of lawful conduct.” (more…)
The Third Circuit’s recent decision in Greenfield ex rel v. Medco Health Systems, Inc. recently clarified the “link” that plaintiffs must show to connect the alleged kickback scheme to the submitted claim. Greenfield, No. 17-1152 (3d Cir. Jan. 19, 2018). In affirming summary judgment for the defendant, the Third Circuit held that to create an issue for trial, a plaintiff alleging a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) must present evidence of a claim submitted to the federal healthcare government that was actually exposed to the alleged kickback scheme. (more…)