Health Law Advisor

When the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (“PHE”) ended on May 11, 2023, many physician groups furnishing certain medical equipment, devices, and/or supplies to their Medicare patients became in violation of the federal Physician Self-Referral Law (the “Stark Law”), which has draconian penalties, such as clawback of Medicare payments plus additional stiff monetary penalties and possible exclusion from participation in federal health care programs. 

During the COVID-19 PHE, CMS issued temporary waivers, including a waiver of the “location requirement” of the In-Office Ancillary Services (“IOAS”) exception. That waiver allowed physician groups that furnish certain durable medical equipment, orthotics, prosthetic devices – including intermittent urinary catheters (“IUCs”) – and other medical supplies (collectively referred to here as “DME”) to provide home delivery of such DME to their Medicare patients without facing sanctions for violating the Stark Law.[1] With the end of the PHE having occurred over three months ago, that temporary waiver of sanctions ended and can no longer be relied upon for legal compliance with the Stark Law.[2]     

New York recently enacted new legislation that will amend Article 45-A of the New York Public Health Law, entitled “Disclosure of Material Transactions”.  Although the legislation, as enacted, contains no description of legislative intent, the budget bill language originally proposed referenced concerns with the “proliferation of large physician practices being managed by entities that are investor-backed” (e.g., private equity platforms) and which are otherwise unregulated by the state outside of the licensure of the individual practitioners.

Effective August 1, 2023, the new legislation requires thirty (30) days advance notice to the New York State Department of Health (“Department”) of any “material transactions” involving “health care entities” that provide administrative or management services for physician practices, provider-sponsored organizations, health insurance plans, “or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan providing health care services. . . .”   

Based on their extensive experience advising health care industry clients, Epstein Becker Green attorneys and strategic advisors from EBG Advisors are predicting the “hot” health care sectors for investment, growth, and consolidation in 2020.  These predictions for 2020 are largely based on the increasing confluence of the following three key “drivers” of health industry transformation that is substantially underway:

1. The ongoing national imperative of reducing the cost of health care, via disease prevention and detection, and cost-effective, quality treatment, including more efficient care in ambulatory and retail settings;
2. Extraordinary advances in technologies which enhance disease prevention, detection and cost-effective treatment (e.g., artificial intelligence (AI)-driven diagnosis and treatment, virtual care, electronic medical record (EMR) systems, medical devices, gene therapy, and precision medicine); and
3. The aging baby-boomer population, with tens of millions of Americans entering into their 70s, 80s, and above.

On November 2, 2018 CMS announced the finalization of the 2019 OPPS and ASC payment rules which were initially proposed in July of 2018.[1] [2] While the final document will not be officially published until November 21st, an Inspection Copy is available for the public to review on the Federal Register website. These new payment rules in many ways expand the range of services that CMS will reimburse when performed at Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs), most notably, by including certain cardiac catheterization procedures on the approved list, and by lowering the threshold that ...

This is the 7th and final installment in the Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance series. All titles in this series can be viewed below. Subscribe to our blog to receive these future updates. Prior installments of this series can be accessed using the links provided.

• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: An Introduction (Part I)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Conditional Payments (Part II)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Group Health Plans (Part III)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Non-Group Health Plans (NGHPs) (Part IV)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance:

This is part 6 of 7 in the Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance series. All titles in this series can be viewed below. Subscribe to our blog to receive these future updates. Prior installments of this series can be accessed using the links provided.

• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: An Introduction (Part I)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Conditional Payments (Part II)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Group Health Plans (Part III)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Non-Group Health Plans (NGHPs) (Part IV)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Providers (Part V)

This is part 5 of 7 in the Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance series. All titles in this series can be viewed below. Subscribe to our blog to receive these future updates. Prior installments of this series can be accessed using the links provided.

• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: An Introduction (Part I)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Conditional Payments (Part II)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Group Health Plans (Part III)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Non-Group Health Plans (NGHPs) (Part IV)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Providers (Part V)

This is part 4 of 7 in the Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance series. All titles in this series can be viewed below. Subscribe to our blog to receive these future updates. Prior installments of this series can be accessed using the links provided.

• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: An Introduction (Part I)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Conditional Payments (Part II)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Group Health Plans (Part III)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Non-Group Health Plans (NGHPs) (Part IV)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Providers (Part V)

Recent settlement agreements between the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and two urologist business partners suggests that the government may be focusing increased enforcement efforts on the Stark Law’s “group practice” requirements and the Stark exception for “in-office ancillary services.”  The urologists agreed to pay over $1 million to resolve the allegations.

In early January 2018, the DOJ entered into settlement agreements with Dr. Aytac Apaydin and Stephen Worsham to resolve allegations that the physicians submitted improper claims to ...

This is part 3 of 7 in the Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance series. All titles in this series can be viewed below. Subscribe to our blog to receive these future updates. Prior installments of this series can be accessed using the links provided.

• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: An Introduction (Part I)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Conditional Payments (Part II)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Group Health Plans (Part III)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Non-Group Health Plans (NGHPs) (Part IV)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Providers (Part V)

This is part 2 of 7 in the Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance series. All titles in this series can be viewed below. Subscribe to our blog to receive these future updates. Prior installments of this series can be accessed using the links provided.

• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: An Introduction (Part I)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Conditional Payments (Part II)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Group Health Plans (Part III)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Non-Group Health Plans (NGHPs) (Part IV)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Providers (Part V)

All titles in this series can be viewed below. Subscribe to our blog to receive these future updates. Prior installments of this series can be accessed using the links provided.

• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: An Introduction (Part I)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Conditional Payments (Part II)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Group Health Plans (Part III)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Non-Group Health Plans (NGHPs) (Part IV)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Providers (Part V)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: The False Claims Act (FCA) for ...

There has been a growing trend of strategic joint ventures throughout the healthcare industry with the goal of enhancing expertise, accessing financial resources, gaining efficiencies, and improving performance in the changing environment. This includes, for example, hospital-hospital joint ventures, hospital-payor joint ventures, and hospital joint ventures with various ancillary providers (e.g., ambulatory surgery, imaging, home health, physical therapy, behavioral health, etc.). Extra precautions need to be taken in joint ventures between tax-exempt entities ...

Many health care providers rely on a worked relative value unit ("wRVU") based compensation model when structuring financial relationships with physicians. While wRVUs are considered an objective and fair method to compensate physicians, payments made on a wRVU basis do not always offer a blanket protection from liability under the Federal Stark Law.  As recent settlements demonstrate, wRVU based compensation arrangements that are poorly structured or improperly implemented can result in significant liability.

The wRVU physician compensation model is particularly favored ...

On April 18, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant BayCare Health System ("BayCare") in a False Claims Act whistleblower suit that focused on physician lease agreements in a hospital-owned medical office building, thereby dismissing the whistleblower's suit.

The whistleblower, a local real-estate appraiser, alleged that BayCare improperly induced Medicare referrals in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law because the lease agreements with its physician tenants included free use of the hospital parking garage and free valet parking for the physician tenants and their patients, as well as certain benefits related to the tax-exempt classification of the building. The brief ruling affirms the magistrate judge's determination that the whistleblower failed to present sufficient evidence to establish either the existence of an improper financial relationship under the Stark Law or the requisite remuneration intended to induce referrals under the Anti-Kickback Statute.

The alleged violation under both the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law centered on the whistleblower's argument that the lease agreements conferred a financial benefit on physician tenants – primarily, because they were not required to reimburse BayCare for garage or valet parking that was available to the tenants, their staff and their patients.  However, the whistleblower presented no evidence to show that the parking was provided for free or based on the physician tenants' referrals.  To the contrary, BayCare presented evidence stating that the garage parking benefits (and their related costs) were factored into the leases and corresponding rental payments for each tenant.  Further, BayCare presented evidence to support that the valet services were not provided to, or used by, the physician tenants or their staff, but were offered only to patients and visitors to "protect their health and safety."

In light of the evidence presented by BayCare, and the failure of the whistleblower to present any evidence that contradicted or otherwise undermined BayCare's position, the magistrate judge found that: (i) no direct or indirect compensation arrangement existed between BayCare and the physician tenants that would implicate the Stark Law, and (ii) BayCare did not intend for the parking benefits to induce the physician tenants' referrals in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute.

A recent settlement demonstrates the importance of compliant structuring of lending arrangements in the health care industry. The failure to consider health care fraud and abuse risks in connection with lending arrangements can lead to extremely costly consequences.

On April 27, 2017, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") announced that it reached an $18 Million settlement with a hospital operated by Indiana University Health and a federally qualified health center ("FQHC") operated by HealthNet. United States et al. ex rel. Robinson v. Indiana University Health, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-2009-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind.).  As alleged by Judith Robinson, the qui tam relator ("Relator"), from May 1, 2013 through Aug. 30, 2016, Indiana University Health provided HealthNet with an interest free line of credit, which consistently exceeded $10 million.  It was further alleged that HealthNet was not expected to repay a substantial portion of the loan and that the transaction was intended to induce HealthNet to refer its OB/GYN patients to Indiana University.

While neither Indiana University Health nor HealthNet have made any admissions of wrongdoing, each will pay approximately $5.1 million to the United States and $3.9 million to the State of Indiana. According to the DOJ and the Relator, the alleged conduct violated the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the Federal False Claims Act.

For more details on the underlying arrangement and practical takeaways . . .

On March 15, 2017, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued an opinion that sheds insight on how courts view the "writing" requirement of various exceptions under the federal physician self-referral law (or "Stark Law"). The ruling involved the FCA qui tam case, United States ex rel. Emanuele v. Medicor Assocs., No. 1:10-cv-245, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36593 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2017), involving a cardiology practice (Medicor Associates, Inc.) and the Hamot Medical Center. The Court's detailed discussion of the Stark Law in its summary judgment ...