Photo of Rebecca Waltuch

Rebecca Waltuch provides legal counsel on general health law, including the representation of hospitals, health systems and other health care clients. She focuses her practice on counseling clients on a range of regulatory issues, including federal health care program fraud and abuse and the Stark law, as well as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Rebecca serves as the lead lawyer for physician contracting matters for a large hospital system. She advises accountable care organization (ACO) clients on legal and regulatory issues, including the preparation of ACO waivers. She also has experience in matters related to physician network affiliations and managed care contracting. Read Rebecca Waltuch's full bio.

In a case of first impression, a federal court found that the federal physician self-referral law’s (Stark Law) requirement that financial arrangements with physicians be memorialized in a signed writing could be material to the government’s payment decision. This case raises troubling questions about applying the False Claims Act (FCA) to what many in the industry consider “technical” Stark issues, especially given the Supreme Court’s description of the materiality test as “demanding” and not satisfied by “minor or insubstantial” regulatory noncompliance.

United States ex rel. Tullio Emanuele v. Medicor Associates (Emanuele), in the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, involves Medicor Associates, Inc., a private medical group practice (Medicor), and Hamot Medical Center’s (Hamot) exclusive provider of cardiology coverage. Tullio Emanuele, a qui tam relator and former physician member of Medicor, alleged that Hamot, Medicor, and four of Medicor’s shareholder-employee cardiologists (the Physicians) violated the FCA and Stark Law because Hamot’s multiple medical director compensation arrangements with Medicor failed to satisfy the signed writing requirement in the Stark Law’s personal services or fair market value exceptions during various periods of time. The US Department of Justice declined to intervene in the case, but filed a statement of interest in the summary judgment stage supporting the relator’s position.
Continue Reading