We are pleased to announce that our Healthcare Group received a national Band 1 ranking for the eleventh year in a row in the 2020 edition of Chambers USA. After more than a decade at the top, we are once again the only one to rank Band 1 nationally. The Health team also earned Band 1 state-level rankings for its healthcare practices in California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, DC. Additionally, the team also earned the national Spotlight Table ranking for the Privacy and Data Security: Healthcare category. In addition, nearly half of the Healthcare Industry Advisory group partners were individually ranked.
A few days before Thanksgiving, the news media published an internal memo by the Office of General Counsel (OGC) at the US Department of Health and Human Services (Department) to officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The memo expressed OGC’s views on the impact of the Supreme Court’s Azar v. Allina Health Services, et. al., No. 17-1484 decision earlier this year on the enforcement of various CMS guidance. Specifically, OGC states that Medicare payment rules that meet the Court’s standard that did not go through notice-and-comment rulemaking cannot form the basis for an enforcement action, including an overpayment finding.
The issue in this case was whether the Department’s determination that Medicare Part C patients should be included in the Medicare fraction represented a change in a “substantive legal standard” within the meaning of Section 1871(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (SSA). If the answer was yes, then notice-and-comment procedures were required under the title 18 of the SSA. In a 7-1 decision, the court held that the inclusion of Part C patients in the Medicare fraction was “substantive.” The court explained that the “substantive legal standard” under Section 1871(a)(2) of the SSA means any legal standard or determination that creates rights and obligations, such as the scope of benefits, payment for services, eligibility of individuals to receive benefits, or eligibility of individuals, entities or organizations to furnish services.
OGC concludes that, according to the Supreme Court, Congress imposed a notice-and-comment requirement for substantive Medicare rules in a broader range of circumstances than otherwise would be required under the Administrative Procedure Act. Therefore, CMS guidance documents, such as the Medicare Internet-Only Manuals, setting forth interpretive payment rules, are legally nonbinding and may not be used as the basis of an enforcement action. As an example, if a “broadly worded statute or regulation can be interpreted a variety of ways,” sub-regulatory policy statements may be viewed as creating a new substantive rule, and thus cannot be enforced as binding rules under the Court’s ruling. According to OGC’s memo, CMS guidance documents that are “closely tied to a statutory or regulatory requirement” may provide additional clarity through such guidance and enforcement actions implicating the guidance can still be brought. Further, even if the sub-regulatory guidance is not specifically enforceable as a substantive legal standard, it can be used for other purposes, such as scienter or materiality, as stated in the Department of Justice Brand Memo.
OGC indicates that it does not believe Local Coverage Decisions (LCDs) require notice-and-comment rulemaking because LCDs reflect payment determinations of the local Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) and are not binding on the Department. They accordingly do not create any substantive legal standards. In its memo, OGC concludes, that LCDs cannot be solely used as the basis for a “government enforcement action,” including an overpayment demand. OGC also notes that codifying guidance in a retroactive regulation could create other legal risks for enforceability.
The primary takeaway is that providers should examine carefully the basis for any enforcement action, including an overpayment determination, for whether the decision is based on sub-regulatory guidance that offends the Court’s standard. Providers should also be on the lookout for attempts by CMS to codify sub-regulatory guidance in notice-and-comment rulemaking in order to prospectively avoid this problem.
On October 9, 2019, the US Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published proposed changes to the physician self-referral law (Stark Law). Physician practices are subject to the Stark Law, and the proposed rule includes an important clarification affecting certain group practices’ compensation models.
CMS proposes to revise its regulations to clarify the special rule for group practice distributions of income from Stark designated health services (DHS). Compliance with this special rule is a requirement of the Stark Law’s definition of a “group practice,” and compliance with the “group practice” definition is generally necessary for physician groups to have the protection of the in-office ancillary services (IOAS) exception to the Stark Law. The special rule for sharing DHS profits permits a group, or a pod of five or more physicians in the group, to pool their DHS income and distribute the pool in a manner that does not directly take into account the volume or value of any physician’s referrals for DHS.
For years, there has been a debate within the health law bar regarding how these DHS income pools can be structured under the special rule. One position is that the special rule permits pools to be organized by DHS, meaning, for example, that if the group’s only DHS are imaging and physical therapy services (PT), the group can have one pool for diagnostic imaging income in which one set of five or more physicians participate, and another pool for PT income in which another (perhaps overlapping) set of five or more physicians participate (split-DHS income pooling). The other position is that the special rule requires that the DHS income pool must include all the DHS generated by the participating physicians. In such a case, the imaging and PT pools described above would have to be consolidated (all-DHS income pooling).
Featuring insights from government representatives, in-house lawyers and compliance officers from across the healthcare and life sciences landscape, attendees will learn strategies for proactively managing and effectively responding to compliance risks, investigations and litigation during this day-long program.
The event will also feature an address by Daniel R. Levinson, Former Inspector General, Office of Inspector General Department of Health and Human Services, and a lunchtime keynote by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Vice Provost for Global Initiatives & Chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania; Former Special Advisor for Health Policy, White House Office of Management and Budget.
On October 9, 2019, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published proposed changes to the physician self-referral law (Stark Law) (Stark Proposed Rule) and the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and the Beneficiary Inducement Civil Monetary Penalty Law (CMPL) (AKS Proposed Rule).
The proposed rules represent some of the most significant potential changes to these laws in the last decade. HHS Deputy Secretary Eric Hargan said that they “would be a historic reform of how healthcare is regulated in America.” This On the Subject provides a high-level overview of key provisions in the proposed rules. More in-depth analysis will follow at our Regulatory Sprint Resource Page.
The Stark Law and AKS Proposed Rules have been promulgated as part of HHS’s “Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care,” which was launched in 2018 with the goal of reducing regulatory burden and incentivizing coordinated care. As part of this initiative, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) began scrutinizing a variety of long-standing regulatory requirements and prohibitions to determine whether they unnecessarily hinder the innovative arrangements that policymakers are otherwise hoping to see develop. The agencies took the step of formally seeking public input on this topic by issuing requests for information (RFIs) in June and August 2018. More information about HHS’s Sprint and the RFIs is available on our Regulatory Sprint Resource Page.
The Proposed Rules reflect a coordinated effort between CMS and OIG to address various challenges to the transition to value-based care. Both agencies clearly recognize that the two laws often operate in tandem, but they also emphasize that they are distinct and separate enforcement vehicles. Thus, in some instances OIG’s proposals may be more restrictive that CMS’s, and both agencies state that the AKS may act as a “backstop” to protect against arrangements that meet a Stark Law exception but are nonetheless considered abusive. CMS also proposes to remove compliance with the AKS as a requirement from several Stark Law exceptions, further underscoring the laws’ separateness.
In U.S. ex rel. J. William Bookwalter, III, M.D. et al. v. UPMC et al., the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit endorsed two controversial interpretations of the Stark Law’s “volume or value” standard, known as the correlation theory and the practice “loss” theory. Specifically, the court held that the relators had made out a plausible allegation of an indirect compensation arrangement between surgeons and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC)-affiliated hospitals. The court held that the relators were entitled to proceed to discovery because of the correlation between the amount of the productivity-based compensation paid to the surgeons and the volume of the surgeons’ referrals for inpatient hospital services (e.g., operating room and hospital room and board). Repeatedly invoking the concept of “where there is smoke, there might be fire,” the court also stated that the fact that at least three of the surgeons allegedly received compensation in excess of the hospital’s collections for their professional services supported the plausibility of the relators’ allegation that the compensation “takes into account” the volume or value of the physicians’ referrals to the hospitals.
If this holding sounds familiar, that is because it is based on the same logic advanced by the Fourth Circuit in U.S. ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey, the infamous Stark Law/False Claims Act (FCA) case that first put the hospital industry on notice that common productivity-based compensation to hospital-employed surgeons could implicate the Stark Law. While distinguishable from Tuomey, UPMC has important implications for hospitals and health systems that employ surgeons.
Summary of Allegations and Procedural History
In UPMC, the plaintiffs alleged that the UPMC hospitals where the neurosurgeons performed cases each had an indirect compensation arrangement with the surgeons and thus triggered the Stark Law’s prohibitions against referrals and the associated Medicare claims for reimbursement. Based on this alleged Stark Law violation, the plaintiffs claimed that the hospitals violated the FCA by submitting false claims for hospital services referred by the surgeons. The surgeons were paid a base salary and a productivity bonus of $45 per work RVU above a specified target. If a surgeon did not hit the target, her base compensation would be reduced the following year. The government had intervened in and settled another aspect of the case, but declined to intervene on these allegations.
The compensation arrangement between the surgeons and the UPMC hospitals was evaluated as a potential indirect compensation arrangement because the surgeons were employed by UPMC-affiliated medical practices, not directly by the UPMC hospitals. For Stark Law purposes, an indirect compensation arrangement requires, among other things, that the compensation paid to the physician “varies with” or “takes into account” the volume or value of the physician’s referrals to the hospital. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that the compensation greatly exceeded fair market value and that at least three surgeons were paid more than the hospital collected for their services. The plaintiffs also asserted that “[e]very time . . . [the surgeons] performed a surgery or other procedure at the UPMC Hospitals, the Physicians made a referral for the associated hospital claims pursuant to the Stark Statute.”
Bingham v. HCA, Inc., a recent Eleventh Circuit case, highlights the centrality of fair market value to Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) analyses. This decision is significant for several reasons and we expect to see Bingham cited by many defendants in future False Claims Act cases. The case is also a reminder that the current regulatory and enforcement environment can result in litigation over arrangements with fair market value payments that involve little, or no, compliance concerns.
One of the most fundamental elements of managing risk under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) is ensuring remuneration is consistent with fair market value. A recent Eleventh Circuit case highlights the centrality of fair market value to AKS analyses. See Bingham v. HCA, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-23671 (11th Cir. 2019). In Bingham, the court held that proving fair market value is an essential element for a relator to survive summary judgment and that relators must plead a lack of fair market value consistent with the Rule 9(b) particularity requirement to allege improper remuneration exists in the first place. The court’s holding is significant for two reasons: (1) it underscores that the plaintiff bears a burden in pleading and proving lack of fair market value, and (2) it suggests that fair market value compensation may be an absolute defense to an AKS allegation. We expect to see Bingham cited by many defendants in future False Claims Act cases, and we will be watching to see how the Eleventh Circuit and other courts continue to evaluate these concepts.
Case Background and Procedural History
We note that it took five years of costly litigation for HCA to reach this decision. Relator, who has filed a number of cases against hospital systems over the years concerning real estate deals, filed his first amended complaint on August 15, 2014. Relator alleged that HCA, through its Centerpoint Medical Center and Aventura Hospital facilities, violated the FCA due to improper space rental arrangements with physicians. Relator alleged that HCA allegedly paid a medical office building developer improper subsidies and that the developer passed the value of these subsidies onto physician tenants who signed 10-year leases through low initial lease rates, restricted use waivers, operating cash-flow shares and free office improvements. Relator also alleged HCA provided direct remuneration to physician tenants at the Aventura facility, including free parking, subsidized common area maintenance, free use permissions and below market rent.
In this second installment of the Healthcare Enforcement Quarterly Roundup for 2019, we cover several topics that have persisted over the past few years and identify new issues that will shape the scope of enforcement efforts for the remainder of this year and beyond. In this Quarterly Roundup, we discuss DOJ’s guidance on compliance programs and cooperation credit, new US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rules and enforcement activity on provider religious/conscience opt-out rights, enforcement activity against home health agencies and telemedicine providers, continued federal action to combat the opioid crisis, and resolution of ambiguity in the False Claims Act (FCA) statute of limitations.
Click here to read the full issue of the Healthcare Enforcement Quarterly Roundup.
Certain long-standing laws, such as the civil monetary penalty provision prohibiting patient inducements, have hampered providers’ ability to fully leverage remote patient monitoring and other telehealth tools. Many stakeholders are hoping that developments in the Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care will begin the rulemaking process to enable greater access to digital health and virtual care products.
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) launched the Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care in 2018 with the goal of reducing regulatory burden and incentivizing coordinated care. As part of this initiative, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and other agencies are scrutinizing a variety of long-standing regulatory requirements and prohibitions to determine whether they unnecessarily hinder the innovative arrangements policy-makers are otherwise hoping to see develop. While regulations such as the civil monetary penalty prohibition on patient inducements have significant benefits for reducing fraud and abuse, they can also make it difficult for health systems to deploy digital tools that help patients track, monitor and share health data with their providers.
International law firm McDermott Will & Emery was named 2019 “Healthcare Team of the Year” by Chambers USA at its awards ceremony celebrating legal excellence. This is the fourth time McDermott has received the honor – more than any other law firm in the awards’ history.
The “Healthcare Team of the Year” award comes on the heels of McDermott’s industry-leading health practice garnering a national Band 1 ranking in the Healthcare category of the 2019 edition of Chambers USA for the 10th consecutive year – also the only firm to hold that distinction.
“Our team is dedicated to helping health care companies push the boundaries of what it means to be innovative,” said McDermott Will & Emery Partner and International Head of McDermott’s Health Industry Advisory Group, Eric Zimmerman. “Receiving Chambers’ “Healthcare Team of the Year” award is a powerful testament to that work and to our passion for contributing to the health care and the legal industries at the highest levels. Thank you to our clients and to Chambers for recognizing McDermott again this year.”
McDermott Will & Emery is the nation’s leading healthcare law firm. The Health Industry Advisory group is the only health practice to receive top national rankings from U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms,” Chambers USA, The Legal 500 US and Law360. The practice was also recognized by Chambers as “Health Team of the Year” in 2010, 2013 and 2017. McDermott has held the top spot in PitchBook’s League Tables as the most active firm for healthcare private equity since 2017.
About Chambers USA
Chambers USA covers all the states in the U.S. Law firms that have a national presence are also ranked in Nationwide tables (which focus on those firms that are the country’s best in their respective areas of practice). Chambers USA rankings and editorial commentary are based on independent research, and interviews with clients and other purchasers of legal services. Chambers & Partners is one of the premier directories for legal services and in a recent survey of 20,000 in-house counsel over half reported that their directory of choice when reviewing law firms and individual lawyers is Chambers & Partners.