As part of its Modernization Initiative, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently published its first industry-segment specific Compliance Program Guidance, which focuses on skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) (SNF ICPG). Since 1998, the OIG has issued voluntary compliance program guidance documents, each tailored to a specific segment of the health care industry and providing important insights on specific risk areas and tips for implementing an effective compliance program.  In April 2023, the OIG announced a long overdue modernization of these compliance program guidance documents and rolled out its General Compliance Program Guidance the following November.  

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently filed a complaint against Erlanger Health System (Erlanger), a county-owned public health system, and two of its Tennessee hospitals alleging that the health system systemically violated the Stark Law from 2014-2021 and “knowingly” submitted claims for hospital procedures in violation of the False Claims Act. The lawsuit was initially brought as a qui tam (whistleblower) lawsuit filed by a former Chief Compliance Officer and a former Chief Financial Officer of Erlanger. While fair market value compensation is a key criterion for most Stark Law exceptions, this lawsuit is one of the few enforcement actions initiated by the DOJ focused on fair market value compensation paid to employed physicians. This blog post covers three key takeaways from the DOJ’s allegations against Erlanger.

On July 8, 2024, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) updated its General Questions on Fraud and Abuse Authorities (FAQs) related to the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and the Beneficiary Inducement Prohibition of Civil Monetary Penalties Law (CMPL) with clarifications regarding waiving patients’ cost-sharing amounts pursuant to health care providers’ financial assistance policies. The new FAQs (FAQs #13-16) reiterate the OIG’s longstanding position that hospitals and other health care providers may provide financial assistance to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries on the basis of financial need. Of note, the OIG also provides some guidance on the distinction between marketing and advertising to patients as opposed to making patients aware about the availability of financial assistance, and this guidance may be useful in a variety of contexts beyond cost-sharing waivers. 

In the latest episode of Health Law Diagnosed – Women Leaders in Health Care, host Bridgette Keller is joined by women leaders in health care to discuss the emerging role of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care. This is the second episode of Mintz’s Women Leaders in Health Care – a series that highlights women leaders in the health care industry.  In this episode, Jane Moran, Chief Information and Digital Officer at Mass General Brigham; Rebecca Mishuris, Chief Medical Information Officer and Vice President at Mass General Brigham; and Carina Edwards, Chief Executive Officer at Kipu Health discuss opportunities for enhanced patient-provider interactions and improvements in health care delivery through the use of AI.

Get to know Jane, Rebecca, and Carina as they answer questions on their career, their advice for women in the health care industry, and the meaning of success and mindfulness. 

A Virginia Federal Judge recently rejected a challenge to a negative Advisory Opinion issued by the Department of Health & Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) that disapproved of a proposal where certain pharmaceutical manufacturers would fund financial assistance for the manufacturers’ Part D oncology drugs. The Advisory Opinion was requested by the Pharmaceutical Coalition for Patient Access (PCPA), which is a charitable organization formed and fully funded by pharmaceutical manufacturers of oncology drugs. Subsequently, PCPA brought the lawsuit alleging that the negative Advisory Opinion violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) started 2024 with a flurry of activity by issuing four new Advisory Opinions on January 3, 2024. In one of these Advisory Opinions, the OIG approved a vendor’s referral program that offered gift cards to physician practices that are existing customers in exchange for recommending the vendor’s services to prospective physician customers.  In doing so, the OIG adopts a position that directly contradicts the position that the Department of Justice (DOJ) espoused in multiple False Claims Act (FCA) settlements involving similar referral programs offered by electronic health record (EHR) vendors in which the DOJ alleged these programs violated the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS).

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) published a General Compliance Program Guidance (GCPG) on November 6, 2023, marking the first update to OIG’s compliance program guidance documents (CPGs) since 2008 and advancing OIG’s Modernization Initiative first announced in a September 2021 Request for Information. 

In coordination with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) proposed a much-anticipated framework to establish and manage “appropriate disincentives” for health care providers under the Information Blocking Rules. As described in more detail in the blog post, the proposed rule (Appropriate Disincentives Proposed Rule) includes proposed disincentives for (i) hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAHs) participating in the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program; health care providers eligible for Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) adjustments; and health care providers participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) rejected a manufacturer’s proposal to provide free hearing aids to certain patients if they receive one of the manufacturer’s cochlear implant devices (Proposed Arrangement). In reaching its determination, the OIG reiterated its longstanding concern about free items or services to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries because such arrangements could result in steering and unfair competition. Of note, the free hearing aids under the Proposed Arrangement have a retail value of $1,180 to $2,240 which far exceeds the $570 limit imposed under the only potentially relevant safe harbor – the patient engagement and support safe harbor.