On July 29, 2015 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") announced that it is extending the temporary moratoria on the enrollment of new home health agencies, subunits, and branch locations ("HHA") and part B ambulance suppliers for an additional six months.
Section 6401(a) of the Affordable Care Act added section 1866(j)(7) to the Social Security Act (the "Act") to provide the Secretary with authority to impose a temporary moratorium on the enrollment of new Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP providers and suppliers if the Secretary determines a moratorium is necessary to prevent or combat fraud, waste, or abuse under these programs.
Based on this authority CMS initially imposed a moratoria on the enrollment of new HHA and part B ambulance suppliers in a notice issued on July 31, 2013 (78 FR 46339). This was subsequently extended and expanded in a notice issued on February 4, 2014 (79 FR 6475). Additional extensions of the moratoria by notices issued on August 1, 2014 (79 FR 44702) and February 2, 2015 (80 FR 5551).
The initial July 31, 2013 moratoria applied to HHAs in Miami-Dade County, Florida and Cook County, Illinois, as well as surrounding counties, and part B ambulance suppliers in Harris County, Texas and surrounding counties. The February 4, 2014 notice expanded the HHA moratoria to Broward County, Florida; Dallas County, Texas; Harris County, Texas; and Wayne County, Michigan and surrounding counties. The moratoria on the enrollment of part B ambulance suppliers was also expanded in the February 4, 2014 notice to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and surrounding counties.
In deciding to impose and extend the moratoria, CMS considered "qualitative and quantitative factors suggesting a high risk of fraud, waste, or abuse" within these geographic locations. CMS relied on law enforcement experience with "ongoing and emerging fraud trends and activities through civil, criminal, and administrative investigations and prosecutions." CMS also consulted with HHS-OIG regarding the extension of the moratoria. Prior to imposing the moratoria, CMS reviewed Medicare data and found no concerns related to beneficiaries accessing HHAs or ambulance suppliers within these geographic locations. State Medicaid agencies and other CMS state partners determined that the moratoria would not create issues related to access to care for Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Program ("CHIP") beneficiaries.
CMS will determine whether to extend or lift the moratorium before extending the moratorium further. If the moratoria is extended or lifted, CMS will publish notice in the Federal Register. Once a moratorium is lifted, the providers or suppliers types that were unable to enroll because of the moratorium will be designated to CMS' high screening level for 6 months from the date the moratorium is lifted.
The attorneys at The Health Law Partners have a significant amount of experience counseling home health agencies, ambulance suppliers and other medical providers throughout the United States on moratoria and enrollment issues, as well as how to maintain compliance with applicable regulations once enrollment screening begins.
On July 29, 2015 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") announced that it is extending the temporary moratoria on the enrollment of new home health agencies, subunits, and branch locations ("HHA") and part B ambulance suppliers for an additional six months.
The government does not like Physician-Owned Hospitals ("POH"). The government also does not like Physician-Owned Distributors ("POD"). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") and the Office of Inspector General ("OIG") have taken several steps recently to crack down on what it views as abusive PODs and POHs. In a brand new memorandum report, the OIG reviewed twelve physician owned hospitals to determine the overlap between POHs and PODs of spinal devices. This study was completed as a follow up to the 2013 Spinal Devices Supplied by Physician-Owned Distributors: Overview of Prevalence and Use report. CMS expressed interest in the ownership overlap following discussion related to the 2013 report.
The OIG used publicly available information and information from CMS's Provider Enrollment Chain and Ownership System ("PECOS") to determine whether a physician had an ownership interest in both a hospital and a POD that sold spinal devices to the same hospital. The OIG found one physician who had an ownership interest in both a hospital and a POD selling spinal devices to the same hospital. The OIG admits to the possibility of more overlapping ownership than the one instance found, but they state that none were found using the methods applied here.
The limited information available to determine common ownership between hospitals and PODS purportedly raises concerns of transparency among Medicare providers and vendors who sell implantable devices to providers. The government wants transparency to make sure providers do not violate referral and billing prohibitions under the Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark). Transparency also contributes to ensuring providers comply with OIG exclusions and the Anti-Kickback Statute. The OIG states that transparency can also implicate patient safety and quality of care because ownership can impact the clinical decision making of a physician.
Surgical implants, such as the spinal devices manufactured by the PODS in this report, are most commonly physician preference items. Physician preference items are items where the choice of brand and type of device are determined, or strongly influenced, by the physician rather than the hospital where the surgery takes place.
In a March 26, 2013 Special Fraud Alert, the OIG, citing physicians as the gatekeeper as to the brand and type of device, stated that there is a "strong potential for improper inducements between and among the physician investors, entities, device vendors, and device purchasers." This issue was cited in the 2011 Congressional report titled,Physician Owned Distributors (PODs): An Overview of Key Issues and Potential Areas for Congressional Oversight which stated that "[t]he very nature of PODs seem to create financial incentives for physician investors to use those devices that give them the greatest financial return and that, in the process, patient treatment decisions may be based on personal financial gain."
In conclusion, the OIG believes that there is limited transparency as to the ownership of PODs and, to a lesser extent, hospitals. The OIG believes that CMS's Physician Payments Sunshine Act ("Sunshine Act") (42 CFR §§ 403.900 - 403.914) will increase the availability of information to permit the identification of POD owners. The Sunshine Act requires manufacturers and group purchasing organizations to report ownership and investment interests held by physicians to CMS.
The attorneys at The Health Law Partners have a significant amount of experience counseling physicians, hospitals and medical device manufacturers throughout the United States on the Physician Self-Referral Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and the Sunshine Act, among many other state and federal regulations applicable to the field of health care law. We have the experience and knowledge to ensure compliance with these sophisticated health care regulations so as to remedy any issues that may come from the common ownership examined in this OIG report.
In June, the Office of Inspector General ("OIG") issued two new reports on Medicare Part D titled: Ensuring the Integrity of Medicare Part D (available here) and Questionable Billing and Geographic Hotspots Point to Potential Fraud and Abuse in Medicare Part D (available here).
In the Ensuring the Integrity of Medicare Part D report, the OIG outlines the progress it has made in addressing - and the work still needed to protect against - fraud in the Medicare Part D program. According to the OIG, Part D fraud relates to two main issues: "1) the need to more effectively collect and analyze program data to proactively identify and resolve program vulnerabilities, and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse before it occurs; and (2) the need to more fully implement robust oversight to ensure appropriate payments, prevent fraud, and protect beneficiaries." The OIG recommends that CMS take the following steps to combat fraud and abuse:
(1) require plan sponsors to report all potential fraud and abuse to CMS and/or the MEDIC;
(2) require plan sponsors to report data on the inquiries and corrective actions they take in response to fraud and abuse;
(3) expand drug utilization review programs to include additional drugs susceptible to fraud, waste, and abuse;
(4) implement an edit to reject prescriptions written by excluded providers;
(5) exclude Schedule II drug refills when calculating final payments to plan sponsors at the end of each year;
(6) seek authority to restrict certain beneficiaries to a limited number of pharmacies or prescribers;
(7) develop and implement a mechanism to recover payments from plan sponsors when law enforcement agencies do not accept case referrals;
(8) determine the effectiveness of plan sponsors' fraud and abuse detection programs; and
(9) ensure that plan sponsors' compliance plans address all regulatory requirements and CMS guidance.
In the Questionable Billing and Geographic Hotspots Point to Potential Fraud and Abuse in Medicare Part D report, the OIG addresses drug abuse in the Part D Program, including controlled substance abuse and the diversion of non-controlled substances for illegal purposes. The OIG analyzed prescription drug event records from 2006-2014. The study found that:
• Since 2006, Medicare spending for commonly abused opioids has grown faster than spending for all Part D drugs;
• Pharmacies with questionable billing raise concerns about pharmacy-related fraud schemes; and
• Geographic hotspots for certain non-controlled drugs point to possible fraud and abuse.
The OIG recommends that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid continue "to conduct investigations of pharmacies with questionable billing when warranted and to monitor pharmacy billing" and to fully implement OIG's previous recommendations."
The publication of these two reports highlights the government's continued scrutiny on pharmacies and prescribing physicians. Pharmacies and physicians should ensure that they have effective compliance programs in place to internally combat fraud and abuse.
OIG Issues New Advisory Opinion on Free Introductory Visits Offered to Patients by Home Health Providers
On August 6, 2015, the Office of Inspector General ("OIG") issued Advisory Opinion No. 15-12 (available here) regarding a home health provider (the "Requester") offering free introductory visits to patients who have chosen it for home health care. The OIG concluded that this arrangement does not violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute ("AKS").
Under the proposed arrangement, the Requester does not have any involvement in the patient's home health selection process. Instead, a physician, another health care professional, or discharge planner/case manager presents the patient with a list of home health providers from which to choose. If the patient selects the Requester as its home health provider, then the Requester contacts the patient to schedule a free introductory visit with one of its liaisons. The purpose of the introductory visit is to provide the patient with: (1) an overview of the home health experience; (2) contact lists for the Requester's administrative and clinical staff; and (3) pictures of the patient's care team.
In reaching the conclusion that the arrangement does not generate prohibited remuneration under the AKS, the OIG considered the following facts:
• The Requester does not pay or offer any remuneration to the physicians or other individuals involved in the patient's provider selection process;
• The introductory visit does not involve any diagnostic or therapeutic services reimbursed by federal health care programs or by third-party payors, and the services provided by the liaison during the introductory visit do not require clinical training;
• The liaison does not contact the patient until after receiving notice that the patient has chosen the Requester as his or her home health provider; and
• The Requestor does not submit claims for or claim costs associated with the introductory visit.
The OIG reasoned that any benefits received by the patient during the introductory visit were for the primary purpose of facilitating the patient's transition to home health care, and the intangible worth to patients does not implicate the AKS. The OIG emphasized that when analyzing whether a service has economic value to patients, "the absence of a paying market for such service is not dispositive." According to the OIG, such an absence may be the result of factors other than the service having little or no value, including because: (1) the service is still new and emerging in the marketplace; or (2) the market has been distorted by the availability of free services. The key takeaway here is that AKS liability is not avoided simply because the service is not reimbursable.
On July 8, 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released a proposed rule containing major provisions relating to the Physician Self-Referral Law (i.e., the Stark Law) and its exceptions. CMS states that the purpose of the Stark proposals is: "to accommodate delivery and payment system reform, to reduce burden, and to facilitate compliance," as well as to "expand access to needed health care services." CMS also states that it realizes that "additional clarification" of Stark would help.
Below is a brief summary of the proposals affecting the Stark Law:
a) Proposes new Stark exception for recruitment assistance and retention payments from hospitals, federally-qualified health centers (FQHCs), and rural hospital clinics (RHCs to physicians to assist them in employing non-physician practitioners (NPPs) in the geographical area served by the hospital, FQHC, or RHC providing the remuneration.
• The exception would not apply to remuneration flowing to a group practice or other type of physician practice (i.e., physician organizations). But, the exception would protect physicians from being considered to be "standing in the shoes of the physician organization" when determining a direct compensation arrangement.
• The exception would only apply where the NPP is a bona fide employee of the physician (or physician's practice).
• The exception would only apply to NPP services that are primary care services (i.e., family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics, geriatrics, and OB-GYN).
• Additional proposals seek to limit or "cap" the remuneration allowed under this exception.
b) Proposes adding a definition of the geographical area served by FQHs and RHCs under 42 CFR 411.357(e).
c) Proposes to standardize the various terms (e.g., "based on" or "without regard to") used for the principle of "takes into account" referrals to clarify that there are not different volume or value of referral standards in the Stark exceptions.
d) Proposes revisions to clarify that the policy stated in the Stark Phase III regulations regarding retention payments in underserved areas (42 CFR 411.357(t)) is correct and remains CMS's policy.
e) Proposes revisions to clarify that the Stark exceptions requiring that a lease or arrangement be set out in writing do not require a single formal contract. Rather, "a collection of documents, including contemporaneous documents evidencing the course of conduct between the parties, may satisfy the writing requirement." Additionally, the proposed rule clarifies that the one-year term requirement is satisfied "as long as the arrangement clearly establishes a business relationship that will last for at least 1 year."
f) Proposes to extend the "holdover" arrangements permitted by 42 CFR 411.357(a), (b) and (d) from six months to indefinitely (or, alternatively, a longer but definite period), provided that the holdover continues on the same terms and conditions and that it meets the fair market value requirements. Additionally, CMS proposes to revise the fair market value compensation exception "to permit renewals of arrangements of any length of time, including arrangements for 1 year or greater."
g) Proposes to revise the definition of remuneration to clarify that if one of the six statutory exceptions to remuneration applies, then the term "used solely" does not mean that the exception does not apply if the item, device or supply is used for more than one of the six statutorily allowed purposes.
h) CMS clarifies that employees or independent contractors do not "stand in the shoes" of their physician organization's arrangements "unless they voluntarily stand in the shoes of the physician organization as permitted under 42 CFR 411.354(c)(1)(iii) or (c)(2)(iv)(B). Additionally, CMS proposes to remove the phrase "stands in the shoes" from the definition of "locum tenens physician."
i) Proposes to expand the exception for ownership of publicly traded securities to include protection for "trading on an electronic stock market or OTC quotation system in which quotations are published on a daily basis and trades are standardized and publicly transparent."
j) Proposes a new exception for timeshare leasing "that would protect timeshare arrangements that meet certain criteria," including, but not limited to, that "the arrangement is between a hospital or physician organization (licensor) and a physician (licensee) for the use of the licensor's premises, equipment, personnel, items, supplies, or services...used predominantly to furnish evaluation and management services." This exception would not apply to independent diagnostic testing facilities or clinical laboratories.
k) CMS provides further guidance to physician-owned hospitals on the disclosure of its ownership interests, including that social media websites are not considered to be public websites for the hospital.
l) CMS also solicits comments on the affect that the Stark Law may have on Accountable Care Organizations.
In addition to the above-noted Stark provisions, the proposed rule contains a number of other proposals, including provisions on appropriate use criteria for advanced imaging services, telehealth, self-referral disclosure protocol, and more. More information on these provisions will be coming soon.
On April 20, 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, in partnership with the American Health Lawyers Association and the Association of Healthcare Internal Auditors, published Practical Guidance for Health Care Governing Boards on Compliance Oversight, which describes the OIG's expectations of the compliance oversight role healthcare governing boards (e.g., Board of Directors of a hospital) should play in a healthcare organization. For a summary of this guidance, please visit: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/aba_health_esource/2014-2015/June/oig.html
June 25, 2015
On June 18, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of King, et al. v. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., upholding federal subsidies for taxpayers who buy health insurance on the federal government's healthcare.gov webpage. The potential loss of the subsidies was seen by commentators as a significant threat to the Affordable Care Act.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 6-3 majority of the Court, finding that though the text of the law was ambiguous, the Affordable Care Act was passed "to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them." Thus, the Court found that the tax credits that are available to the state health insurance exchanges should also be available to insurance purchased on the federal government's healthcare.gov page, which is relied upon by as many as 37 states that do not have their own insurance exchanges. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion was joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Scalia dissented, and was joined by Justices Thomas and Alito.
The attorneys at The Health Law Partners have a significant amount of experience in providing guidance to healthcare stakeholders as to developments in healthcare law, regulation and policy throughout the United States. For more information regarding such matters, please call (248) 996-8510 or visit thehlp.com.
On June 18, 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") arrested 243 individuals for allegedly participating in Medicare/Medicaid fraud schemes. The government claims that combined, the cases involve $712 million in supposedly false billings. As part of the sweep, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid ("CMS") also suspended a number of providers' ability to bill Medicare using the Affordable Care Act's suspension authority. 16 individuals in the Metro Detroit area were arrested as part of the sweep. The arrests were credited to the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team ("HEAT"), a joint initiative between HHS and the Justice Department. HEAT operates in regions of concern throughout the U.S., including the Baton Rouge, Brooklyn, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami-Dade and Tampa Bay areas.
The government claims that the fraud occurred in various areas of healthcare, including home health care, psychotherapy, physical and occupational therapy, durable medical equipment ("DME") and pharmacy. Court documents claim that those charged were involved in billing Medicare and Medicaid for treatment that never occurred, treatment that was not medically necessary or for the payment of kickbacks in exchange for patient referrals.
OIG and DOJ Commentary on Physician-Vendor Relationships at the ABA Physician Legal Issues Conference
In a speech at the American Bar Association's Physician Legal Issues Conference on June 11, 2105, a representative from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) noted that the OIG is currently hiring attorneys to gear up to pursue claims against physicians under the OIG's administrative penalty authorities. This means that the OIG will not wait for whistleblowers to pursue qui tam actions. Instead, the OIG will target physicians on its own. These comments come on the heels of the OIG issuing a Fraud Alert titled "Physician Compensation Arrangements May Result in Significant Liability. (For more information, visit our recent blog on this Fraud Alert, available here. Physicians should review their relationships with vendors and other entities to which they refer for compliance.
During the same speech, a representative of the U.S. Department of Justice offered practical guidance for physicians and their legal counsel. He discussed seven factors to consider when determining if these physician-vendor relationships are compliant. The seven factors include:
1) Physician Selection: How were the physicians selected by the vendor? Were they selected because of the physicians' ability to refer patients to the vendor?
2) Purpose of the Relationship: Is the inducement of referrals one purpose of the relationship - even if there are other reasons for the relationship?
3) Referrals: What was the referral relationship between the physician and the vendor before, during and after the relationship? Does the physician track his or her referrals to the vendor? If so, why? Does the arrangement include consequences for a low volumes referrals or bonuses for a high volume of referrals?
4) Business Structure: Is the vendor a shell entity, is business actually transacted, does the entity even own equipment? What kind of capital contribution was made to get the entity up and running?
5) Compensation: Is the physician's compensation fair-market value, does it vary with the volume or value of referrals, was it negotiated in an arm's length transaction? If multiple physicians are involved, how is each physician compensated relative to the other physicians? If the compensation is not the same for all physicians but their responsibilities are the same, then why is, for example, Physician A being paid more than Physician B?
6) Capital Contribution and Risk: Is the physician's investment nominal? Is the return on investment proportional to the ignition investment contribution? Is the physician's level of risk proportionate?
7) Disclosure: Are patients informed of the relationship? Even within the joint venture itself, is everything transparent to the parties involved?
At the American Bar Association's Physician Legal Issues Conference, Celeste Davis, Esq., of the Office for Civil Rights announced that, effective Monday, June 15, 2015, the Kansas City branch of the Office for Civil Rights will consolidate with the Chicago branch to form the new Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, Midwest Region. The new Midwest Region will still maintain offices in both Chicago and Kansas City. This will be the first consolidation in the history of the Office for Civil Rights. Ms. Davis stated that the consolidation will allow the agency to work quicker, smarter, and to be more available to covered entities to assist with compliance.
On June 9, 2015, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a Fraud Alert titled "Physician Compensation Arrangements May Result in Significant Liability," which is available here. In the Fraud Alert, the OIG warns physicians of the dangers of entering into compensation arrangements with health care entities, such as medical directorships or office staff arrangements, that do not reflect fair-market value or are not for bona fide services that the physicians actually provide. These compensation arrangements will violate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute and expose the physicians to civil monetary penalties if not properly structured. Additionally, the OIG reminds physicians that the Anti-Kickback Statute will be violated "if even one purpose of the arrangement is to compensate a physician for his or her past or future referrals of Federal health care program business."
While the Fraud Alert does not include any guidance that has not been promulgated previously by the government, it does evidence the OIG's intent to target physicians (as opposed to larger health care entities). In fact, the OIG references 12 recent settlements with physicians who entered into questionable medical directorship and office staff arrangements. In these cases, the OIG states that the medical directorship arrangements took into account the physicians' referrals, did not reflect fair-market value and, in some cases, the physician did not even provide the medical directorship services contemplated under the arrangement. Some of the arrangements even involved the health care entity paying the salaries of the physicians' office staff. Such arrangements are highly suspect and likely constitute a transfer of remuneration to the physician because the physicians are relieved of the financial burden of paying their employee salaries.
However, any medical directorship arrangements may be structured to comply with the Anti-Kickback Statute. In addition to structuring the arrangement to meet the fair-market value and bona fide services requirements, physicians can protect themselves by ensuring that there is an actual need for the services they are to provide and by documenting the performance of those services. In light of the recent government scrutiny on these arrangements, physicians should have their medical directorship agreements reviewed by healthcare compliance counsel.
On June 9, 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a fraud alert warning physicians of significant liability for entering into medical directorships that are non-compliant with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). Medical directorships must reflect fair market value for bona fide services that the physicians actually provide. The OIG warns that if one purpose of the arrangement is to compensate a physician for his or her past or future referrals of Federal health care program business such as Medicare or Medicaid patients then such arrangement could be deemed in violation of the AKS and therefore subject the parties to the arrangement to significant liabilities including but not limited to civil monetary penalties.
BILL TO AMEND MICHIGAN NO-FAULT LAW TO CREATE "D-INSURANCE" FOR THE CITY OF DETROIT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
In addition to the proposed amendment to Michigan's No-Fault Act that is presently on the floor of the State House of Representatives awaiting a second reading, another bill that poses to decrease reimbursements has cleared the Michigan Senate's Insurance Committee. Senate Bill 288, proposed by Senator Virgil Smith, involves limiting no-fault benefits for injured residents of Detroit and potentially other large cities in the State of Michigan.
As proposed, cities over 500,000 in population (only the City of Detroit, with a U.S. Census-estimated 2014 population of 680,250 would qualify) or a city that can demonstrate that 35% or more of the city's residents who regularly drive a vehicle do so without automotive insurance would qualify. The bill's sponsors admit that it is not known which Michigan cities other than Detroit would qualify as 35% or greater uninsured, due to lack of data.
Under the bill, qualifying cities would be able to cause their residents to have access to particular insurers who could issue "qualifying no-fault policies." Unlike the current no-fault law, which requires that insurers provide unlimited coverage for reasonable charges incurred for medically necessary products, services for an injured person's care, recovery or rehabilitation, a qualifying no fault policy would have a minimum aggregate coverage amount of $275,000.00 for catastrophic injuries.
As currently proposed, the bill would limit coverage for the victims of catastrophic car accidents to as little as $275,000.00, which would have a significant negative effect on many healthcare providers/suppliers and their patients.
Now that the bill has been passed by the Senate Insurance Committee, it needs to be passed by the Senate as a whole before being sent to the Michigan House of Representatives for consideration.
PHARMACIES ARE RECEIVING LETTERS FROM THE DOJ REGARDING BILLING FRAUD AND FALSE CLAIMS ACT INVESTIGATIONS.
Recently, pharmacies (specifically compounding pharmacies) across the country have begun receiving letters from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) notifying them that the pharmacy is being investigated for fraud under the False Claims Act for knowingly billing for drugs that were not medically necessary. Industry insiders have reported that, just yesterday (on 5/21/2015), at least four pharmacies received these investigation notices from the DOJ. The industry insiders also reported that the letters were hand-delivered on Thursday, May 21, 2015, by U.S. Navy CIS agents, were signed by the U.S. Attorney General, and demanded that the pharmacies respond to the billing fraud allegations within twenty (20) days.
Further, pharmacies are being investigated and receiving DOJ letters specifically related to their contacts with patients, and allegations of impropriety regarding the same. These actions/letters are, of course, somewhat related to major recent developments related to Tricare's scrutiny of compounding pharmacies. For more information, please see the Enhanced Compound Ingredient Screening Notice issued by the Department of Defense's Pharmacy Operations Division on May 11, 2015, which is available here.
Letters from the DOJ alleging billing fraud, False Claims Act violations, or referencing a DOJ investigation are extremely time-sensitive. False Claims Act fines and penalties can be crippling for a pharmacy. A pharmacy that receives such a letter must act quickly to engage experienced healthcare legal counsel to defend it against these allegations and to represent them during the investigation.
The Health Law Partners, P.C. (HLP), is a full-service healthcare law firm representing pharmacies and other healthcare entities across the country. Healthcare regulatory matters are extremely complex and frequently evolving, and healthcare investigations require representation by attorneys experienced in such matters. The attorneys at HLP specialize in healthcare fraud and abuse matters, including government investigations. HLP has experience defending pharmacies in DOJ investigations and understands the defenses available to fight allegations of billing fraud and False Claims Act violations.
If you received a letter from the DOJ regarding an investigation, or for more information, please contact Adrienne Dresevic, Esq., email@example.com, or Clinton Mikel, Esq., firstname.lastname@example.org, at (248) 996-8510.
PHYSICIANS AND HEALTHCARE ATTORNEYS: Join HLP at the ABA's Physicians Legal Issues Conference on June 10-12th in Chicago.
We invite you to join Adrienne Dresevic, Esq., and Clinton Mikel, Esq., at the American Bar Association's Physicians Legal Issues Conference on June 10-12th in Chicago, Illinois. This annual conference is attended by both attorneys and physicians and is held in conjunction with the Chicago Medical Society and the American Association for Physician Leadership.
This year's theme is "Thriving in a Time of Change". This unique program has been designed to bring physicians and legal experts, as well as government and payer representatives, together, from around the country, to provide perspectives and ideas directly to physicians and attorneys on ways for physicians to thrive, not just "survive" in these uncertain times. Ms. Dresevic and Mr. Clinton are both presenting at the conference, covering issues such as the Stark Law, Anti-Kickback Statute, and HIPAA. Whether you are a physician or entering the field of healthcare, this conference will provide valuable insight and strategies that can improve your practice.
For program details, please visit http://ow.ly/NbMz3.