![Vasilios J. Kalogredis, with Lamb McErlane.](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2022/10/Vasilios-Kalogredis-767x633.jpg)
OIG Provides Clarification on Gift Card Arrangements Paid to Patients by Providers
In March, in Advisory Opinion No 23-03, The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has responded to a request for an advisory opinion on a proposed arrangement by a parent and laboratory (requestors) to provide prepaid cards of up to $75 to certain individuals, including federal health care program beneficiaries, to encourage them to return a sample collection kit associated with the requestors' colorectal cancer screening test (proposed arrangement).
April 24, 2023 at 09:45 AM
9 minute read
Health CareIn March, in Advisory Opinion No 23-03, The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has responded to a request for an advisory opinion on a proposed arrangement by a parent and laboratory (requestors) to provide prepaid cards of up to $75 to certain individuals, including federal health care program beneficiaries, to encourage them to return a sample collection kit associated with the requestors' colorectal cancer screening test (proposed arrangement). The opinion analyzed whether the proposed arrangement violated the Federal Anti-Kickback statute (AKS) and the beneficiary inducements civil monetary penalties (CMP). Upon review, and based on the information provided by the requestors, the OIG has concluded that although the proposed arrangement could generate prohibited remuneration under the AKS, they would not impose administrative sanctions on the requestors. Furthermore, the proposed arrangement would not constitute grounds for administrative sanctions under the CMP. The OIG relied solely on the information provided by the requestors and did not conduct an independent investigation of the facts presented.
Facts
The parent is a company that manufactures a noninvasive colorectal cancer screening test (test) that is the first and only such test that has been approved by the FDA as of the time of the advisory opinion being published. The test is performed by the parent's wholly owned subsidiary, the laboratory, and is the only laboratory that performs the test. Medicare covers the test under specified circumstances. In October 2014, the CMS issued a Medicare national cpverage determination and supporting decision memorandum stating that Medicare Part B will cover the test once every three years for Medicare beneficiaries aged 50 or older who meet certain criteria. In November 2022, CMS revised its coverage determination for colorectal cancer screening, reducing the age from 50 to 45. The test may be ordered for a patient only by health care providers acting within the scope of his prescribing authority (prescriber). After the prescriber submits an order for the test to the laboratory, the laboratory ships the test sample collection kit directly to the patient's home. The patient subsequently collects his own stool sample, and ships the test-collection kit with the stool sample (kit) to the laboratory in a prepaid, preaddressed package. The laboratory then analyzes the stool sample and compares the composite score of the various assay results to a control to determine a positive or negative result. A positive result may indicate the presence of colorectal cancer or advanced adenoma and should be followed by a diagnostic colonoscopy.
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![Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/8b/aa/b09943f342518c2b4777ff196925/philadelphia-eagles-767x633.jpg)
Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
3 minute read![Pa. High Court: Concrete Proof Not Needed to Weigh Grounds for Preliminary Injunction Order Pa. High Court: Concrete Proof Not Needed to Weigh Grounds for Preliminary Injunction Order](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2024/07/Pennsylvania-Supreme-Court-justices_2-767x633.jpg)
Pa. High Court: Concrete Proof Not Needed to Weigh Grounds for Preliminary Injunction Order
4 minute read![Superior Court Rejects Pa. Hospital's Challenge to $7.3M Med Mal Judgment Superior Court Rejects Pa. Hospital's Challenge to $7.3M Med Mal Judgment](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/ab/13/9a707cb8415cb94b6817d2973ad2/hospital-767x633.jpg)
Superior Court Rejects Pa. Hospital's Challenge to $7.3M Med Mal Judgment
3 minute read![Longtime Reed Smith Health Care Partner Opts for Solo Practice Over Retirement Longtime Reed Smith Health Care Partner Opts for Solo Practice Over Retirement](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/ca/10/dd00828644a3ad51ef65cf855dc5/karl-thallner-767x633.jpg)
Longtime Reed Smith Health Care Partner Opts for Solo Practice Over Retirement
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Six Benefits of Taking an Opposing Medical Expert’s Deposition
- 2Ex-Prosecutor’s Trial Ends as Judge Throws Out Her Felony Indictment in Ahmaud Arbery Death Case
- 3Conversation Catalyst: Transforming Professional Advancement Through Strategic Dialogue
- 4Trump Taps McKinsey CLO Pierre Gentin for Commerce Department GC
- 5Critical Mass With Law.com's Amanda Bronstad: 700+ Residents Near Ohio Derailment File New Suit, Is the FAA to Blame for Last Month's Air Disasters?
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