Inflationary Adjustments to Civil Monetary Penalties Take Effect Less than Six Months After the Last Increase
This week the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) published inflationary adjustments to civil monetary penalties. This increase takes effect less than six months after the last increase and indicates that DOJ is eager to return to a more regular cadence after a period of less frequent inflationary adjustments (see here). DOJ is likely eager to implement penalties that reflect the rising inflation rate, which is currently at a forty-year record high. As we previously reported, the 2015 Balanced Budget Act (BBA) provides for federal agencies to make inflationary adjustments to civil monetary penalties on January 15 of each year to account for inflation using calculations based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index. After an inflationary update in January 2018, only two updates have occurred until now: an update in June 2020 and a recent update in December 2021. The revised penalties will be assessed for violations that occurred prior to the adjustment, but are assessed after May 9, 2022. As of May 9, 2022, the minimum False Claims Act penalty of $11,803 has increased to $12,537 per claim. The maximum penalty has increased from $23,607 to $25,076 per claim.
DOJ Announces Increased Inflation-Adjusted False Claims Act Penalties
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. In recent years, these increases have occurred less frequently. But on December 13, 2021 the Department of Justice published a final rule that increases the civil penalties in False Claims Act actions for violations that that occurred after November 2, 2015, the date the BBA was enacted. (more…)
Allegations that Community Health Network Paid Doctors Above Fair Market Value and Rewarded Physician Referrals Survives Motion to Dismiss
This month the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied Community Health Network’s (“Community”) motion to dismiss the United States’ complaint-in-intervention alleging that Community submitted false claims based on underlying violations of the Stark Law. United States ex rel. Fischer v. Community Health Network, Inc., No. 14-cv-1215 (S.D. Ind.). The complaint alleged that Community violated the Stark Law through physician compensation that exceeds fair market value (“FMV”) and is based on the volume or value of referrals. The opinion is notable in concluding that even physician compensation at the 90th percentile of rates paid in the market can plausibly allege a financial relationship that is not FMV and thus violates the Stark Law.
District Court Concludes Accurate PDE Data Can be “False Claims” Under the FCA
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).
Preparing for FCA Scrutiny of Pandemic Billing Flexibilities
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.
Private Equity Settlement Highlights Risks for Investors in Life Sciences Industry
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.
Court Permits Qui Tam Focused on Late-90s Conduct to Go Forward, Adopting a Broad Reading of Remuneration and FCA Causation
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.
DOJ Announces First Increase To FCA Civil Penalties Since 2018
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.
Clinical Laboratory to Pay $43 Million to Resolve FCA Liability for Medically Unnecessary Tests; Settlement Demonstrates Importance of Addressing Employee Compliance Concerns
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.
Third Circuit Holds That A Live Hearing Is Not Required When Government Seeks To Dismiss FCA Complaint Over Relator’s Objection
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.