The Business of Compliance in Health Care Transactions
A robust compliance program and a knowledgeable compliance officer provide important value not only in a provider's day-to-day business operations but in the structure and negotiations of a business transaction.
March 05, 2018 at 04:00 PM
5 minute read
Health care is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country. Myriad federal and state laws relating to reimbursement, licensure, privacy, referrals, investments, compensation and tax-exempt status, among others, significantly impacts all aspects of a health care provider's business, including governance, operations, financing, provision of patient care and strategic considerations. In this current age of health care sales, acquisitions, mergers, joint ventures, equity investments and roll-ups, regulatory compliance plays a particularly important role with respect to transaction structure, business strategy, purchase price and closing efficiencies. Numerous considerations, including oversight from multiple government agencies, regulation of referral relationships, provision of certain ancillary services, changes in insurance coverage and reimbursement trends and successor liability (which are not present generally in other industry arrangements) are integral to a health care transaction and can significantly impact the financial terms of a deal. A robust compliance program and a knowledgeable compliance officer provide important value not only in a provider's day-to-day business operations but in the structure and negotiations of a business transaction.
At the outset of structuring any health care transaction must be an assessment of the potential applicable regulatory requirements, including certificate of need review, attorney general approval, provider-based regulations, obtaining new provider numbers, change of ownership applications/notifications, corporate practice of medicine, fee-splitting and self-referral limitations. Moreover, in evaluating the merits, and in negotiating the terms and conditions of a transaction, both buyers and sellers need a detailed understanding of a seller's existing compliance status. In any corporate transaction, due diligence is important. In a health care transaction, however, an appropriate due diligence review can significantly frame the value of the investment in key areas of regulatory compliance, including:
- Physician contracting and compensation: Check whether the terms of all physician arrangements are consistent with applicable regulatory requirements. Review whether, where required, compensation is commercially reasonable, fair market value, and not based on the volume or value of referrals. Check if independent third-party valuations have been conducted and/or survey compensation data reviewed.
- Material vendor contracts and leases: Confirm that the terms and conditions of vendor contracts and property and equipment leases are consistent with applicable regulatory requirements.
- Government oversight and investigations: Ask whether the seller is a party to a corporate integrity agreement. Require disclosure of any pending investigations and notifications of potential investigations received by the seller from the Department of Justice, the Office of the Inspector General or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Determine if the seller is engaging in any activity that is a current focus of investigation by government agencies. Evaluate whether the seller has appropriate record retention policies in place with respect to all aspects of operations including finance and litigation.
- Coding and billing audits: Ask if the seller participates in regular billing and coding audits. Determine if audits are conducted internally or by an independent outside third party. Assess whether the seller is compliant with the 60-day rule regarding any Medicare and Medicaid overpayments.
- Compliance programs, licensure, permits: Review if the seller has appropriate compliance programs in place. Check whether the seller's accounting and financial reporting policies and procedures are consistent with applicable regulations. Determine if staff are trained in relevant compliance areas and instructed with respect to hotline and other reporting processes. Review the seller's policies and procedures to ensure consistency in practice with the terms of the compliance programs. Confirm that licenses, certifications, accreditations, and other permits are up to date.
- Privacy Matters/HIPAA and HITECH: Check that the seller has business associate agreements in place where needed. Ask whether regular privacy risk assessments have been conducted.
- Tax matters for nonprofit health care providers: Check whether the seller engages in any activities, directly or through subsidiaries, that may have a negative effect on its tax-exempt status.
Involving compliance officers of both a seller and buyer early in a transaction can ensure that issues are identified and addressed in the most efficient and effective manner for both parties. Sellers who proactively manage their compliance can often better position themselves prior to a transaction to ensure a more financially attractive offer and efficient closing process. They can address identified gaps or inconsistencies in a timely manner and avoid potential buyer-directed resolutions, which may be expensive and time-consuming. They can also project a more trustworthy and confident operational position to a buyer. On the other hand, buyers who understand a seller's compliance status can avoid (or at least minimize) potential unforeseen post-closing financial liabilities, which could adversely impact their financial and strategic goals. They can better position themselves in contract negotiations to cover potential indemnification exposure, decrease the likelihood of post-closing delays in receivable collections and potential overpayment refundings, and minimize the likelihood of post-closing billing and coding audits and government investigations.
Compliance is an integral part of a health care provider's business. Failure to comply with applicable rules and regulations can have a significant negative impact on the short and long-term financial position and ultimate viability of a health care provider. Material noncompliance (and even immaterial noncompliance in strict liability situations) can result in significant fines and penalties, ongoing government monitoring through corporate integrity agreements, exclusion from participation in government or other third party payor programs and potential loss of physicians and other clinical providers in already underserved areas. Amending noncompliant contractual or lease arrangements can result in adverse changes in revenue flow. Understanding the “business of compliance” can go a long way in preserving the viability of health-care providers and saving a deal.
Jennifer D. Malinovsky is a partner in the Atlanta office of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, where she practices in the areas of health-care corporate and regulatory law and commercial lending/finance. She serves on the firm's executive Committee and formerly served as chair of its recruiting committee and its associates committee.
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
© 2025 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 AllGa. Appellate Judges Mull Landlord Responsibility in Premises Liability Case Involving Child Shooting
Corporate Lawyer Accused of Extortion Pushes Back Against $3.7M Judgment
6 minute readMetLife Attorney's Switch to Nelson Mullins Continues String of In-House Moves to Law Firms
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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