On February 11, 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published a final rule on the reporting and return of overpayments within 60 days, an obligation commonly known as the “60-day rule.” The final CMS rule, which relates to Medicare Part A and Part B only, eases some of the requirements for healthcare providers and suppliers compared to what CMS originally proposed four years ago. Given that the failure to timely report an overpayment can lead to False Claims Act (FCA) exposure, the final rule has significant FCA implications for healthcare providers.

Under the “reverse false claim” provision of the FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G), liability can exist when a provider or supplier “knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government.” An “obligation” includes the retention of any overpayment. The Affordable Care Act explicitly states that the 60-day rule is an “obligation” for purposes of the FCA.

Continue Reading FCA Implications of the CMS Final Rule on Overpayments

The FCA continues to be the federal government’s primary civil enforcement tool for investigating allegations that healthcare providers or government contractors defrauded the federal government. In the coming weeks, we will take a closer look at recent legal developments involving the FCA. This week, we examine recent court decisions that have required a relator only to plead a reliable indicia of the submission of false claims to satisfy Rule 9(b).

Relators in a pair of cases from the Middle District of Florida succeeded in satisfying Rule 9(b) under a relaxed pleading standard. In U.S. ex rel. Space Coast Medical Associates, LLP, 94 F. Supp. 3d 1250 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2015), the district court held relators had pleaded “sufficient indicia of reliability that claims were submitted” by alleging “particularized knowledge of the Defendants’ billing process and of alleged fraudulent bills,” as well as “individual Medicare patients who received treatment.”

Continue Reading FCA Deeper Dive: Rule 9(b) and the Pleading of Actual Claims Under a Relaxed Standard

There are a number of key issues that will drive the government’s enforcement efforts in the coming year and that will have a significant impact on how healthcare fraud matters are pursued by relators asserting FCA claims and are defended on behalf of healthcare providers.  In the previous weeks, we have examined these issues in greater depth and why healthcare providers should keep a close eye on these issues.  This week, we examine the Fourth Circuit’s upcoming appellate consideration of the use of statistical sampling to establish falsity under the FCA.

In 2014, the district court’s opinion in U.S. ex rel. Martin v. Life Care Centers of America rejected a motion to exclude the government’s expert testimony regarding the intended use of statistical sampling to establish liability over an extrapolated universe of claims.  Since that time, a number of other district courts have considered the issue of whether such evidence may be used to establish liability by either the government or relators.  See U.S. ex rel. Paradies v. Aseracare, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167970 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 4, 2014) (denying motion for summary judgment and noting that “[t]he Government has statistical evidence regarding all of the Government’s universe of 2,181 claims. Statistical evidence is evidence.”); U.S. ex rel. Guardiola v. Renown Health, 2015 WL 5123375 (D. Nev. Sept. 1, 2015) (issuing discovery ruling regarding the underlying data universe relevant to relator’s use of statistical sampling); U.S. ex rel. Ruckh v. Genoa Healthcare, LLC, 2015 WL 1926417 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2015) (granting relator’s motion to admit expert testimony based on statistical sampling that had not been undertaken by relator as of the date of the motion).

Continue Reading FCA Issues to Watch: Appellate Consideration of Statistical Sampling

In a February 4, 2016, decision, United States ex rel. Wall v. Circle C. Construction, LLC, the Sixth Circuit summarily rejected the government’s assertion that the measure of damages in a False Claims Act (FCA) suit involving a violation of prevailing wage rate requirements was the total amount paid for the work.  The Sixth Circuit’s rejection of the “total contract value” theory of damages in the prevailing wage rate context is a welcome development for FCA defendants who are faced with increasingly creative damages theories asserted by the government and the relator’s bar.

Circle C’s Army Contract

For a case that involved a relatively minor non-compliance with the prevailing wage rate requirements applicable to federal construction contracts, the Circle C. Construction case has a long history.  Circle C entered into a contract to construct warehouses at the U.S. Army base at Fort Campbell, located in Kentucky and Tennessee.  Pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act, Circle C was required to pay electrical workers at least $19.19 per hour, plus a fringe benefit rate of $3.94 per hour.  Circle C was also required to submit certified payroll for itself and its subcontractors.

Continue Reading

Matt Curley was interviewed by Becker’s Hospital Review in connection with an article dated February 10, 2016, about how healthcare providers can take practical steps to reduce the risk of employees and third parties pursuing whistleblower lawsuits when they encounter potential compliance issues. The comments below expand upon that interview.

Healthcare providers receiving reimbursement from government payers know there is a significant risk of encountering whistleblowers under the False Claims Act. Last year, there were more than 600 new whistleblower lawsuits filed under the False Claims Act. And, during the previous five years, there have been nearly 3400 new False Claims Act lawsuits filed by whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers received nearly $600 million in FY 2015 year as their share of the proceeds of False Claims Act judgments and settlements. That amount brought total recoveries during the previous five years to nearly $2.5 billion.

With the often times protracted, expensive, and disruptive government investigations that can follow the filing of a whistleblower lawsuit under the False Claim Act, practical measures that can reduce the possibility of whistleblower activity are certainly worth consideration.

Continue Reading Practical Tips to Prevent Whistleblowers

The FCA continues to be the federal government’s primary civil enforcement tool for investigating allegations that healthcare providers or government contractors defrauded the federal government. In the coming weeks, we will take a closer look at recent legal developments involving the FCA. This week, we examine recent court decisions requiring relators to plead actual claims to satisfy the requirements of Rule 9(b) in order to avoid dismissal.

In the past, the First Circuit has shifted between requiring the identification of a specific false claim and applying a more flexible standard. Compare U.S. ex rel. Karvelas v. Melrose-Wakefield Hosp., 360 F.3d 220, 232 (1st Cir. 2004) (applying strict standard) abrogated on other grounds, Allison Engine Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S. 662 (2008), with U.S. ex rel. Duxbury v. Ortho Biotech Prods., L.P., 579 F.3d 13, 29 (1st Cir. 2009) (applying flexible standard). Last year, the First Circuit explained its approach as requiring “relators to connect allegations of fraud to particular false claims for payment, rather than a fraudulent scheme in the abstract.”

Continue Reading FCA Deeper Dive: Rule 9(b) and the Pleading of Actual Claims

There are a number of key issues that will drive the government’s enforcement efforts in the coming year and that will have a significant impact on how healthcare fraud matters are pursued by relators asserting FCA claims and are defended on behalf of healthcare providers. In the coming weeks, we will examine these issues in greater depth and why healthcare providers should keep a close eye on these issues. This week, we examine the government’s continued enforcement focus on long-term care providers.

The previous year saw the continued trend of an increasing number of FCA cases based on the theory that long-term care services (e.g., skilled nursing, home health, or hospice) provided to patients were medically unnecessary, and therefore, the healthcare provider submitted false claims in connection with those services.  See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Hayward v. SavaSeniorCare, LLC, No. 3:11-cv-0821 (M.D. Tenn.), United States’ Consolidated Complaint in Intervention (Oct. 26, 2015); U.S. ex rel. HCR ManorCare, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-00013 (E.D. Va.), United States’ Consolidated Complaint in Intervention (April 10, 2015).

Continue Reading FCA Issues to Watch: Medical Necessity of Long-Term Care Services

For the first time in recent history, the previous year’s healthcare fraud headlines were noteworthy as much for legal developments and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) pronouncements as they were for the healthcare fraud recovery haul by the government.

To be sure, DOJ enjoyed yet another banner year of civil and criminal healthcare fraud enforcement results. During the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015 (FY 2015), the federal government racked up nearly $3.6 billion in civil fraud recoveries, marking the eleventh straight year in which such recoveries exceeded $1 billion.

Continue Reading A Look Back at Healthcare Fraud Enforcement Efforts from 2015

The FCA continues to be the federal government’s primary civil enforcement tool for investigating allegations that healthcare providers or government contractors defrauded the federal government. In the coming weeks, we will take a closer look at recent legal developments involving the FCA. This week, we examine the FCA’s public disclosure bar and recent cases considering whether disclosures are sufficient to bar FCA claims.

Courts have continued to clarify the requirements for a relator to be considered an original source, and thus exempted from the public disclosure bar, under the FCA’s pre-PPACA and post-PPACA versions. In these cases, courts have typically focused on the requirements that a relator have “direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based” (pre-PPACA) and “knowledge that is independent of and materially adds to the publicly disclosed allegations or transactions” (post-PPACA).

Continue Reading FCA Deeper Dive: Original Sources under the FCA’s Public Disclosure Bar

The FCA continues to be the federal government’s primary civil enforcement tool for investigating allegations that healthcare providers or government contractors defrauded the federal government. In the coming weeks, we will take a closer look at recent legal developments involving the FCA. This week, we examine the FCA’s public disclosure bar and recent cases considering whether disclosures are sufficient to bar FCA claims.

The FCA’s public disclosure bar prevents a relator from filing a qui tam complaint based on information previously disclosed to the public, thereby dissuading parasitic lawsuits based on publicly available information. In cases considering the scope of the public disclosure bar, courts have continued to examine the issue of how or to whom information must be disseminated in order to constitute a “public disclosure,” which often has resulted in a narrowing of the public disclosure bar’s scope in a given case. Such cases marked a shift away from decisions favorable to FCA defendants toward a more nuanced and specific application of the public disclosure bar.

Continue Reading FCA Deeper Dive: When Public Disclosures Bar FCA Claims

From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network
From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network

Thought Leadership by our Attorneys.