The Anti-Kickback Statute's Role in Health Insurance Fraud Cases
The AKS and FCA are two of the most important federal fraud and abuse laws applicable in the health care context and, when acting in tandem, their power is multiplied.
June 30, 2022 at 12:00 PM
10 minute read
Alleged violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) are more and more often at the heart of actions involving accusations of health insurance fraud brought under the False Claims Act (FCA). Consider, for example, the amended complaint that was just filed by the U.S. Justice Department to add six physicians as defendants to the original action it filed in April, involving alleged kickbacks and improper laboratory testing claims billed to federal health care programs.
According to the government's amended complaint, the six physician defendants received thousands of dollars in kickbacks in return for their referrals of laboratory testing. The government alleged that laboratories True Health Diagnostics (THD) and Boston Heart Diagnostics Corporation (BHD) conspired with small Texas hospitals, including Rockdale Hospital d/b/a Little River Healthcare (LRH), to pay physicians to induce referrals to the hospitals for laboratory testing, which was then performed by THD or BHD. As alleged, the hospitals paid a portion of their laboratory profits to recruiters, who in turn kicked back those funds to the referring physicians.
The recruiters allegedly set up companies known as management service organizations (MSOs) to make payments to referring physicians that were disguised as investment returns but that actually were based on, and that were offered in exchange for, the physicians' referrals. The complaint alleged that laboratory tests resulting from this referral scheme were billed to various federal health care programs, and that the claims not only were tainted by improper inducements but, in many cases, also involved tests that were not reasonable and necessary.
This content has been archived.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 All‘Second’ Time’s a Charm? The Second Circuit Reaffirms the Contours of the Special Interest Beneficiary Standing Rule
Attorney Fee Reimbursement for Non-Party Subpoena Recipients Under CPLR 3122(d)
6 minute readHere’s Looking at You, Starwood: A Piercing the Corporate Veil Story?
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Not Here: Court Finds Texas Has No Jurisdiction Over Google
- 2Lawyer's Retirement Benefits Excluded From Marital Property
- 3'David and Goliath' Dispute Between Software Developers Ends in $24M Settlement
- 4Supreme Court Takes Up the Corporate Transparency Act: Recent Litigation and Potential Next Steps
- 5Brogdon: The Final Nail in Corbin’s Coffin in Premises Cases
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