Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Laboratory Specimen Collection Arrangements with Contract Hospitals - OIG Advisory Opinion 22-09

Client Alert
May 3, 2022

Introduction

On April 28, 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) published an Advisory Opinion[1] in which it evaluated a proposed arrangement where a network of clinical laboratories (the “Requestor”) would compensate hospitals (each a “Contract Hospital”) for specimen collection, processing, and handling services (“Collection Services”) for laboratory tests furnished by the Requestor (the “Proposed Arrangement”). The OIG concluded that the Proposed Arrangement would generate prohibited remuneration under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) if the requisite intent were present.  This is due to both the possibility that the proposed per-patient-encounter fee would be used to induce or reward referrals to Requestor and the associated risk of improperly steering patients to Requestor.

Summary of Advisory Opinion 22-09

The Requestor, a network of clinical laboratories, including locations that engage in Collection Services, sought OIG approval to contract with Contract Hospitals where Requestor would pay the Contract Hospitals on a per-patient-encounter basis for Collection Services that would then be sent to Requestor for testing. Requestor would bill insurance programs, including federal healthcare programs (e.g., Medicare and Medicaid), for the subsequent testing. The Collection Services would be performed by a hospital-engaged phlebotomist at the Contract Hospital. Compensation would be paid only with respect to individuals who present with orders for testing and who are not inpatients or registered outpatients of the Contract Hospital.  The Contract Hospital would have the opportunity to choose to which laboratory it would send the specimens for testing for any order not specifying a particular laboratory. 

The Proposed Arrangement

The Requestor certified to all of the following with respect to the Proposed Arrangement: 

  • It would be set out in a writing signed by the parties;
  • It would cover all of the services to be provided, which would not exceed those that are reasonably necessary to accomplish a reasonable business purpose;
  • It would be for a term of at least 1 year;
  • The per-patient-encounter fee would be consistent with fair market value in an arm’s-length transaction;
  • Contract Hospitals would be prohibited from separately billing any payors or patients for the Collection Services; and
  • Contract Hospitals would represent that none of their employed/contracted physicians or affiliated practices would be required to refer to Requestor and such would not receive renumeration from the Contract Hospitals for any referrals to the Requestor.

Law and Analysis 

The AKS is a federal law that prohibits an individual from knowingly and willfully soliciting or receiving, or offering or paying, any remuneration (i.e. kickback, bribe, or rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, in return for referring an individual to a person for the furnishing or arranging for the furnishing of any item or service for which payment may be made in whole or in part under a federal health care program.[2] The statute has been interpreted to cover any arrangement where one purpose of the remuneration is to induce referrals for items or services reimbursable by a federal health care program.[3] The OIG has created several safe harbors to provide protection to certain arrangements that meet the conditions set forth in an applicable safe harbor. 

The OIG concluded the Proposed Arrangement would implicate the AKS because it would involve payments from a laboratory to a hospital that is in a position to make referrals to the laboratory and to arrange for the laboratory to furnish services that may be paid for by a federal health care program. The OIG provided the following analysis: 

  • For orders in which a laboratory is not specified, the Contract Hospital could refer specimens from that individual to Requestor for reimbursable testing.
  • Because of the per-patient encounter fee, the Contract Hospitals have a financial incentive to direct any specimens to Requestor for the furnishing of laboratory services.
  • The personal services and management contracts and outcomes-based payment safe harbors are not available because the per-patient-encounter fee would take into account the volume or value of referrals or other business generated for which payment may be made in whole or in part under a federal health care program.
  • The proposed safeguards would not overcome the risk of inappropriate steering to Requestor given the financial incentive inherent to a per-patient-encounter compensation methodology. 

Further, the OIG noted the Proposed Arrangement warrants scrutiny because laboratory services are susceptible to increased risk of steering referrals, and the arrangement involves a “per-click” fee structure, which is inherently reflective of the volume or value of referrals or business otherwise generated between parties.  In summary, the Proposed Arrangement would pose more than a minimal risk of fraud and abuse under the AKS because of the per-patient-encounter fee.

Conclusion 

Although in issuing this Advisory Opinion, the OIG relied solely on the facts and information presented to it by the Requestor, the Advisory Opinion does provide a roadmap for evaluating arrangements between laboratories and hospitals for collection-based services. If you have any questions about Advisory Opinion 22-09, please contact a BMD healthcare attorney today.

[1] Advisory Opinion 22-09 is available here.

[2] Social Security Act Section 1128B(b).

[3] See United States v. Nagelvoort, 856 F.3d 1117 (7th Cir. 2017); United States v. McClatchey, 217 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Davis, 132 F.3d 1092 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Kats, 871 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Greber, 760 F.2d 68 (3d Cir. 1985).

kathryn hicknerOffice of the Inspector GeneralLitigationlaboratory testsspecimen collection
Client Alert

Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Medical Statute of Limitations

February 1, 2021The Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in late December that clarifies and finalizes the Ohio law regarding the period of time in which patients can assert claims for medical malpractice. The Court was examining the interplay between three different statutes being the statute of limitations, the statute of repose, and the savings statute.Client Alert

Ohio Hospitals and Healthcare Clinics: It’s Time to Revisit Your Billing and Collection Practices

February 1, 2021According to a recent Cuyahoga County case, certain healthcare entities may not be protected from liability when engaging in unfair or deceptive billing acts. This decision is consistent with the growing trend across the country to encourage price transparency and eliminate unfair surprise billing practices by health care organizations. Now is the time for hospitals and other health care organizations to revisit their billing and collection policies and procedures to confirm that they are legally defensible and consistent with best practices.Client Alert

HIPAA Business Associate Agreements: Why These Contracts Matter

January 27, 2021No one loves drafting, reading or negotiating HIPAA Business Associate Agreements (BAAs). Yet many of us need to do so, and some of us do so daily. They are often boring, dense and technical, but BAAs are important from both a legal and a business perspective, and they deserve our attention. Failure to enter a BAA when one is required can constitute a HIPAA violation that results in substantial liability, as demonstrated by certain recent Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) settlements.1 A business associate who makes a disclosure that is not authorized by the applicable BAA or required by law can be subject to civil and, in some cases, criminal penalties. Further, parties are often presented with BAAs that contain onerous one-sided indemnification and other provisions that can be devasting to an organization in the event of a HIPAA breach. The significance of a BAA is often not fully understood by the parties until something goes wrong (e.g., a HIPAA security incident or breach, an Office of Civil Rights (OCR) audit or a fracture in the relationship between the parties) and, at that point, there is limited opportunity to mitigate legal and business risk. Ideally, attention should be given at the commencement of the business associate relationship, when the parties are able, to thoughtfully addressing regulatory requirements, planning and preparing for potential adverse events and appropriately allocating risk among the parties. As with most healthcare regulatory compliance initiatives, a proactive approach with respect to BAAs is preferable. This article provides a broad overview of certain BAA requirements and some practical negotiating tips for the parties involved.Client Alert

“I’m Out Of Here!” Now What?

January 27, 2021We all know that the healthcare industry is experiencing a wave of integration. This trend has been evident for many years. Fewer physicians are willing to assume the legal, financial and other business risks associated with owning their own practices. More and more physicians, including anesthesiologists, are becoming employed by large physician groups, health systems and national providers. This shift necessarily involves not only entry into new employment arrangements but also the termination of existing relationships. And those terminations are often governed by written employment agreements, state and federal healthcare laws and employer benefit plans and other policies and procedures. Before pursuing their next opportunity, physicians should pause for a moment and first attend to the arrangement that they are leaving. Departing physicians need to understand their legal rights and obligations when leaving their current employment relationships in order to avoid unintended consequences and detrimental missteps along the way. Here are a few words of practical advice for physicians contemplating an exit from their current employment arrangements.Client Alert

Investment Training for the Second and Third Generations

January 19, 2021Consider this scenario. Mom and Dad started the business from the ground up. Over the decades it has expanded into a money-making machine. They are able to sell the business and it results in a multimillion-dollar payday for their labors. The excess money has allowed Mom and Dad to invest with various financial advising firms, several fund management groups, and directly with new startups and joint ventures. Their experience has made them savvy investors, with a detailed understanding of how much to invest, when, and where. They cannot justify formation of a full family office with dedicated investors to manage the funds, but Mom and Dad have set up a trust fund for the children to allow these investments to continue to grow over the years. Eventually, Mom and Dad pass. Their children enjoy the fruits of their labors, and, by the time the grandchildren are adults, Mom and Dad's savvy investments are gone.
Older posts
Newer posts