PPACA Expands the Health Care Industry's Liability Risk
The new law tweaks several existing criminal statutes to make prosecutions easier and penalties larger.
June 30, 2010 at 08:00 PM
6 minute read
Health care fraud is big business. As much as $100 billion is siphoned out of the system by fraudsters each year, with Uncle Sam the single largest victim. Federal investigators and prosecutors have prioritized health care cases for years, and that effort will only intensify as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) phases in over the next few years.
The sprawling PPACA, the health care reform law President Obama signed in March, significantly expands criminal liability and increases key health care fraud sentencing guidelines by 20 to 50 percent. Companies are scrambling to assimilate the changes.
“The industry is reeling,” says Larry Vernaglia, chair of the Health Care Industry Practice at Foley & Lardner. “PPACA is 1,000 pages long, and each page has something unbelievably important on it. If this thing had trickled out over a period of a year, it still would have been difficult for the industry to digest.”
The new law tweaks several existing criminal statutes to make prosecutions easier and penalties larger–and creates new reporting responsibilities as well. While the changes are primarily intended to snare the dedicated crooks and criminal organizations that methodically fleece the system, health care providers, hospitals, and pharmaceutical and medical device companies face substantially increased risk as well.
“Everybody's got a compliance program,” says Donna Thiel, co-chair of the Drug, Device and Life Sciences Industry Group at Baker Donelson. “Now they have to get that book off the shelf, update the policies and really engage in a consistent effort to make sure that they don't have problems. The penalties are much more severe, and there's going to be a lot more people looking.”
FCA Facilitated
The False Claims Act is the favorite tool of health care fraud prosecutors because the cases just walk in their door. The law's qui tam provisions encourage whistleblowers to bring in violations on a silver platter, and PPACA will make it easier.
“The big FCA change is a weakening of the public disclosure bar,” Vernaglia says.
Qui tam relators can't bring cases using information that has been publicly disclosed. The new law, however, narrows the scope of what is considered public disclosure, and expands the definition of what can be considered an original source of incriminating information.
“That, in practical effect, allows more people to bring more cases,” Vernaglia says. “It will also, we believe, create a whole new industry of lawyers and other consultants who will mine data, which is public and previously excluded under the public disclosure bar, in order to try to build a False Claims Act case.”
The new provisions also make the prompt return of overpayments–previously something of a gray area–absolutely mandatory.
Among the millions of transactions with federal health care payors, hospitals and health plans inevitably receive payments in error. PPACA creates an affirmative obligation to return any overpayment to the government within 60 days, under penalty of an FCA violation.
Couple that with qui tam liability and the risk to companies is obvious. And it appears to be effective immediately, even though the government hasn't released implementation regulations.
“What's freaking people out about this particular provision is that it went into effect apparently with the passage of the law,” Thiel says.
Kicking Back
The federal anti-kickback statute prohibits payments (or offers or solicitations of payments) in exchange for referring patients that might get paid by Medicare or Medicaid. Violations, however, were difficult to prove.
Previously, prosecutors had to show that defendants had knowledge of the law and a specific intent to violate it. PPACA essentially removes that requirement.
“They've lightened the knowledge standard,” Thiel says. “Now they're saying you have an obligation to know what the law is, and prosecutors do not have to prove that as a specific element of a crime. That's a very significant lightening of the load, and any time that you lighten the load for a prosecutor, it means that you have to be more careful.”
In addition, under PPACA, payment of a kickback automatically constitutes a false claim.
“So not only would you be convicted of a kickback but also an FCA violation,” Thiel says. “It's a double-whammy.”
Sunshine Stipulations
Starting in 2012, pharmaceutical and medical device companies will be required to record any payments made to doctors and hospitals, with the initial disclosure due in 2013. Several states already have similar regulations–Massachusetts' being notably strict–that allow patients access to information about their doctors' financial relationships. Called Sunshine Laws, the provisions are geared to expose conflicts of interest.
“If you want to go to Doctor X., you can go online and see whether XYZ pharmaceutical company has them on their payroll, or is giving them money for being a speaker or doing research,” says Michele Adelman, counsel at Foley Hoag and a former prosecutor.
In addition to civil penalties for errors in required reporting, there will be criminal penalties if a provider intentionally makes false statements. But the more troubling aspect for companies is the new data category it hands to investigators.
“It opens up a whole new avenue,” Adelman says. “It could possibly be a springboard for investigations under the False Claims Act and other traditional health care fraud investigations.”
Previously, investigators had to subpoena such data, and crunch it to reveal improper payments. That process can almost be automated under a Sunshine Law.
“You're going to see efforts to computerize the fraud control process, so that it's not a matter of having to go and get medical records, and look at files or at a lot of elaborate financial records,” Thiel says. “They're going to push buttons that link a physician to a referral to a hospital to the product to be ordered. [Investigators and prosecutors] will be able to do a data analysis and find problems without engaging in some of the elaborate discovery that has always characterized health care investigations.”
The bottom line is that under PPACA data will be more readily available to prosecutors than ever, criminal thresholds lower and penalties markedly higher. The compliance message to corporate counsel is unequivocal.
“The government is going to use these fraud and enforcement mechanisms as a revenue generation tool, and your best defense is increased attention on the front end,” Vernaglia says. “It's significantly more cost effective to have good compliance infrastructure in place in advance of a problem, as compared to paying lawyers to defend you after the problem arises.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSenators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anticompetitive Practices, Fees
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Trending Stories
- 1On Advice of DOJ Office, Special Counsel Moves to End Trump Prosecution
- 2Stars and Gripes: Merging Firms Need a ‘Superstar Culture’ for US Success
- 3Elaine Darr Brings Transformation and Value to DHL's Business
- 4How Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
- 5When Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250