Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Proposed Laboratory Arrangement Draws Heightened Scrutiny from the OIG

Client Alert
October 18, 2023

On September 25, 2023, the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) issued Advisory Opinion 23-06 (AO). The Opinion involved a proposed arrangement between an independent laboratory and other physician laboratories for the purchase of the technical component of anatomic pathology services.

The Arrangement at Issue

The proposed arrangement specifically involved an anatomic pathology laboratory operator (“Requestor”) that entered into agreements with third-party laboratories, including laboratories that were owned by and/or employed physicians (“physician laboratories”).

Importantly, reimbursement for anatomic pathology laboratory services involves two distinct components: a “technical” component, involving the physical preparation of the specimen for pathologist review, and a “professional” component, involving analysis of the slide by the pathologist. Under the arrangement, the physician laboratory completed the technical component of the anatomic pathology service and then referred the prepared specimen to the Requestor for completion of the professional component. Once both components were finished, the Requestor billed commercial payors for both components as an in-network provider and paid the referring physician laboratory a fair market value, per-specimen fee for the technical component of the anatomic pathology service.

The OIG’s Conclusion

The OIG ultimately concluded that the arrangement at issue, if it was entered into with the requisite intent, would implicate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and constitute grounds for sanctions. Notably, the proposed arrangement did not satisfy any safe harbor, including the safe harbor for personal services and management contracts. In reaching this conclusion, the OIG highlighted that 1) the arrangement allowed the Requestor to pay the physician laboratory for services that they would otherwise not be able to bill for due to their out-of-network status and 2) if the Requestor did not enter into the arrangement, it would lose out on a significant volume of referrals, including federal health care program business, from physician laboratories.

What this Opinion Means for Labs Moving Forward

This Opinion is noteworthy because the OIG opined that the proposed arrangement lacked commercial reasonableness. Even though the physician laboratory was paid fair market value for the technical component of the services under the proposed arrangement, the Requestor had the ability to perform both components and would save money and time doing so rather than paying a third party to perform the technical component. Thus, the proposed arrangement was not commercially reasonable.

Additionally, the OIG reiterated its skepticism toward arrangements that “carve out” federal health care program business in the Opinion. Historically, the OIG has been skeptical of carve out arrangements because they potentially “disguise remuneration for Federal health care program business through the payment of amounts purportedly related to non-Federal health care program business.” 

Lastly, the Opinion cautioned that, absent an applicable safe harbor, proposed arrangements must be evaluated under the AKS on a case-by-case basis by examining the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a “nexus” exists between the proposed arrangement and referrals for services reimbursable by Federal healthcare programs. Per the OIG, a nexus likely existed between the proposed arrangement at issue and referrals for services reimbursable by Federal healthcare programs for two important reasons. First, there was no commercially reasonable purpose for the arrangement for the Requestor. Second, the Requestor, because of this arrangement, would probably receive more referrals of Federal healthcare program business from physician laboratories.

Moving forward, all laboratories should exercise caution if they intend to enter into arrangements resembling the one at issue in this Opinion. In-network independent laboratories that can perform both components effectively should perform both the technical and professional components. Relatedly, out-of-network physician laboratories should not enter into arrangements where they are paid for anatomic pathology services that they are unable to independently bill for.

If you have questions about this Advisory Opinion, or third-party laboratory arrangements, please contact BMD Vice President and Healthcare Attorney Amanda Waesch at alwaesch@bmdllc.com.

Health LawAmanda L. Waeschjordan burdickAnti-Kickback Statute
Client Alert

Five Common Pitfalls for Employers to Watch Out for Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

March 29, 2023The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets forth requirements for employers including, but not limited to, minimum wage, overtime pay, and recordkeeping for covered employees. These requirements are not as simple as they may appear on their face, which leads many employers to fall into compliance issues that they did not realize even existed.Client Alert

The NLRB Limits the Reach of Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Provisions in Severance Agreements Overruling Trump-Era Policies

March 14, 2023Employers should exercise caution and closely examine the content of severance agreements to ensure compliance with a recent National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) decision.  On February 21, 2023, the NLRB restricted the breadth of permissible language of confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses when it issued its decision in McLaren Macomb and overruled its Trump-era decisions in Baylor University Medical Center and IGT d/b/a International Game Technology.Client Alert

Ohio Medical Board Releases New Telehealth Rules

February 23, 2023On Tuesday, February 21, 2023, the State Medical Board of Ohio released its final telehealth rules to implement Ohio’s telehealth statute (O.R.C. 4743.09) for physicians, physician assistants, dieticians, respiratory care professionals and genetic counselors. Ohio’s advanced practice registered nurses (“APRNs”) should also take note of these rules. While the Medical Board does not govern APRNs directly, those APRNs who are required to have a collaborating physician and standard care arrangement (namely nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and clinical nurse specialists) are still affected by the rules. Generally, if an APRN’s collaborating physician is limited in their practice, then the APRN will also be limited.Client Alert

The End of the Public Health Emergency is (Finally) Here

February 23, 2023The COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (“PHE”) that has been in effect for over three years is finally slated to end on May 11, 2023.[1] With the end of the PHE will come many changes for healthcare providers to be aware of; however, some changes may not come until much later.Client Alert

Multi-340B Contract Pharmacy Locations on the Brink? The Third Circuit’s Ruling Gives a Hint.

February 17, 2023The 340B drug discount program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer to sell their products at significant discounts to safety net providers called “covered entities.” In 1996, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) issued guidance authorizing covered entities to enter into a contract pharmacy arrangement with a single third-party contract pharmacy, to which the manufacturer would ship 340B medications but bill the covered entity. In 2010, HRSA issued revised guidance permitting covered entities to enter into an unlimited number of contract pharmacy arrangements.
Older posts
Newer posts