Health Care Enforcement & Investigations

From an agency guidance and regulatory developments perspective, 2022 was fairly quiet until the latter part of the year. Consistent with past practice, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS OIG) issued a number of Advisory Opinions throughout the course of 2022. But DOJ issued four guidance documents between September 2022 and January 2023, all of which related to criminal prosecution of both individuals and corporations and reiterated a theme we have seen from DOJ over the last several years when discussing the resolution of cases: individual accountability, cooperation, and self-disclosure (among others). At tail end the end of December, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) also issued a new proposed rule setting forth potential amendments to regulations for Medicare Part A - D regarding overpayments. We highlight some key takeaways from these publications below.

Individuals and entities in the opioid supply chain continue to be a top enforcement priority for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other enforcement agencies, and we expect this trend will continue in 2023. Federal enforcement efforts this past year were a mixed bag: DOJ suffered a significant setback at the Supreme Court, devoted new resources to curb opioid-related criminal conduct by individuals, and further expanded its civil enforcement toolkit to limit opioid overprescribing by pharmacies and pharmacists. DOJ’s civil enforcement efforts will continue unabated in 2023 as well, as evidenced by the government’s newest lawsuit against a major distributor filed in the final days of 2022. Additionally, state governments and private plaintiffs procured massive civil settlements in the national opioid litigation involving three major pharmacies in 2022.

Over the last year, a few important questions related to False Claims Act (FCA) cases have garnered significant attention. Two of those questions ultimately made their way to the Supreme Court. In one case, which has already been argued, the Court addresses whether the government has authority to dismiss an FCA case brought by a private citizen on the government’s behalf (a qui tam action) after originally declining to intervene and, if so, the applicable standard of judicial review. More recently, the Court has agreed to hear two cases that address whether a defendant’s “objectively reasonable” interpretation of ambiguous statutory language presents a cognizable defense to “knowledge” under the FCA. We cover both of these issues in more detail.

As many of our readers are likely aware, last week the Supreme Court agreed to hear a second False Claims Act (FCA) issue this term. Having previously accepted and heard argument on a case concerning the government’s authority to dismiss an FCA whistleblower case after declining to intervene, the Court has now granted certiorari to hear two cases addressing what constitutes a “knowing” violation of the FCA. Hanging in the balance is the fate of two lower court decisions that endorsed a powerful defense to FCA liability.

As illustrated by a recent Office for Civil Rights (OCR) settlement with a dental practice, health care entities continue to struggle with how to respond to negative online reviews while maintaining compliance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Given the significant reputational harm that negative reviews on Yelp and other social media and public platforms (Platforms) can create, providers may be tempted to respond to such negative comments with patient specifics in an attempt to mitigate harm to their businesses.

The Supreme Court recently denied petitions for writs of certiorari in three closely watched cases where parties asked the Court to clarify the heightened pleading standard governing fraud allegations under the False Claims Act (FCA). The heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) require that, for allegations of fraud (which include FCA claims), “a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Among other things, a cause of action for “false claims” must allege the defendants submitted false claims, or caused false claims to be submitted, to the government. The crux of the issue petitioners asked the Court to address is whether, to meet Rule 9(b)’s requirements for FCA causes of action, relators must allege in the complaint specific details of false claims allegedly submitted to the government for payment. This issue typically arises in qui tam cases under the FCA after the government declines to intervene.  

On September 15, 2022, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a $7.9 million settlement with generic manufacturer Akorn Operating Company LLC (Akorn) to resolve allegations that Akorn caused the submission of over-the-counter (OTC) drugs to Medicare Part D in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA).  Because Medicare Part D only covers prescription drugs, the pertinent drugs were not eligible for Medicare reimbursement. The conduct at issue under this settlement is a relatively novel basis for FCA liability, but we may see similar government enforcement actions in the future as the federal government actively encourages drug manufacturers to “switch” prescription drugs to OTC status in order to enhance their accessibility and reduce costs. This blog post provides an overview and analysis of the settlement. 

In a significant win for False Claims Act (FCA) defendants, the Eighth Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that defendants violated the FCA premised on violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). The Eighth Circuit adopted a stricter but-for causation standard for FCA claims based on AKS violations, holding that, in order to prevail on these claims, the government must prove that FCA defendants would not have submitted claims for particular items or services to Medicare or Medicaid absent the illegal kickbacks. 

Disclosing known or suspected fraud to regulators can have its benefits.  As reported in a previous post, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued policy guidance in 2019 on providing credit in False Claims Act (FCA) settlements to corporations for “disclosure, cooperation, and remediation” (the Policy Guidance).  Since then, the industry has been watching to see how  DOJ implements this Policy Guidance. 

Two settlements announced earlier this month seem to demonstrate that DOJ is applying the Policy Guidance in resolving FCA cases.  Although the facts of these two settlements differ significantly, they highlight the benefits of self-disclosure, cooperation with the government in its investigation, and proactive efforts to remediate non-compliance.

Last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced another significant takedown that it described as “build[ing] on the success of the May 2021 COVID-19 Enforcement Action.”  As part of this enforcement effort, criminal charges were announced against 21 defendants across the country for their alleged involvement in various COVID-19 related fraud schemes that resulted in over $149 million in “COVID-19 related false billings to federal programs and theft from federally-funded pandemic assistance programs.” 

The Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) recently issued another favorable Advisory Opinion on patient incentives (e.g. gift cards or cash equivalents) given as part of patients’ treatment plans. Though the OIG reiterated its concern that cash and cash equivalents given to patients can present substantial fraud and abuse risks, the OIG concluded that the arrangement presented a minimal level of risk.

Health care providers, health information networks, health information exchanges, and health IT developers of certified health IT will want to take note of the information blocking claim submission trends recently published by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC).

In our annual webinar, Mintz’s Health Care Enforcement Defense team reviewed the key health care fraud enforcement developments and trends from 2021, assessed their likely impact in 2022, and provided recommendations to avoid government scrutiny.

In our annual Health Care Enforcement Year in Review & Outlook report, we examine the data and explore health care enforcement trends and likely targets of government scrutiny for 2022 and beyond.

The Department of Justice announced in a February 1, 2022 press release (Press Release) that it obtained more than $5.6 billion in settlements and judgments from civil cases involving fraud and false claims in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2021 (FY2021) – the second largest annual total recovery in False Claims Act (FCA) history.

In a decision issued late last week, the First Circuit has adopted a deferential standard for review of government decisions to seek dismissal of whistleblower lawsuits brought under the False Claims Act (FCA). The court held that so long as the government explains its decision and provides the whistleblower with an opportunity to respond, the government’s motion must be granted absent evidence of collusion or unconstitutionality. This decision deepens a circuit split on the applicable standard under the FCA when the whistleblower objects to a government motion for dismissal.

On January 19, 2022, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) issued a favorable Advisory Opinion regarding an online retailer’s proposal to make its discount programs available to Medicaid beneficiaries. Currently, lower-income individuals are eligible for the retailer’s discount programs based on their enrollment in a number of assistance programs (e.g. Supplemental Security Income, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), and the retailer proposes Medicaid enrollment as another category of eligibility.

While the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) issued the 21st Century Cures Act; Interoperability, Information Blocking, and the ONC Health IT Certification Program (Information Blocking Final Rule) back in May 2020, many entities are still parsing out compliance strategies and seeking additional regulatory guidance to understand how the rule will be enforced. Broadly-speaking, information blocking is a practice that is likely to interfere with, prevent, or discourage access, exchange, or use of electronic health information (EHI). For example, a health system might require patient written consent before sharing the patient’s EHI with unaffiliated providers. Another example of information blocking is that a health IT developer might charge a fee to a health care provider to perform an export of EHI so that the provider can switch to a different health IT platform.

Over the past year, the demand for health care via telehealth has continued to skyrocket as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the public’s increased comfort with obtaining health care goods and services virtually. Join Ellen Janos, Karen Lovitch, Kate Stewart and Alex Hecht as they demystify the current status of laws and regulations, untangle the web of legislation before Congress related to the expansion of telehealth services, discuss recent enforcement activity, and look ahead to trends we see on the horizon.