Health care companies using algorithms and AI applications face increased compliance risks. Previous technology-related enforcement suggests how relators and enforcement agencies might use AI to detect potential fraud and develop allegations based on how the technology is being used.

Government enforcement activities focused on tele-fraudsters remained active in 2023, with most enforcement actions focusing on fraud schemes involving medically unnecessary durable medical equipment or genetic testing, or both.

In 2023, the DOJ amplified compliance-related incentives for companies under criminal investigation (including health care companies), while the OIG has substantially revised and modernized previously issued compliance guidance and resources applicable to health care companies and providers.

This Q&A with John Koss, Managing Director of Mintz’s E-Data Consulting Group, delves into the work of the group along with the benefits, challenges, and emerging issues related to using AI in e-discovery.

Since May 2023, federal legislators have introduced more than 50 bills focused on issues related to AI technologies, with patient privacy, the role of clinicians, and health equity emerging as areas of focus. In addition, the Biden administration released an Executive Order focused on promoting AI safety in October 2023.

An uptick in DOJ cybersecurity enforcement in 2023, includes two FCA settlements, an unsealed qui tam complaint, and significant regulatory activity that could pose future enforcement risk.

Last week the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) issued Advisory Opinion 23-06 (AO), which advised that a proposed arrangement between certain laboratories for the purchase of the technical component (TC) of anatomic pathology (AP) services (Proposed Arrangement) could generate prohibited remuneration under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and thus be grounds for the imposition of sanctions.  As we discuss below, this AO was notable because the OIG’s decision seems to be driven by its views on the (lack of) commercial reasonableness of the arrangement and its skepticism regarding arrangements that “carve out” federal health care program business.

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.

Mintz’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Practice regularly provides a comprehensive examination of health care fraud enforcement trends in its new EnforceMintz newsletter. The inaugural issue delved into False Claims Act cases and enforcement activity related to telemedicine, Medicare Advantage, opioids, kickbacks, and more.

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.