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

EEOC Provides Updated Guidance Regarding Employer COVID-19 Vaccine Policies

June 3, 2021On May 28, 2021, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission updated its guidance regarding employer COVID-19 vaccination policies. The new guidance provides much-needed clarification of expectations for employers seeking to promote workplace safety and prevent the spread of COVID-19, including discussion of mandatory vaccination policies, voluntary vaccination incentives, and accommodation of employees based on disability or sincerely held religious beliefs. The full text of the update is found in Section K of the EEOC’s COVID Q&A document. You can also learn more about these and other developments from BMD's Bryan Meek and Monica Andress through the Employment Law After Hours YouTube channel, available here.Client Alert

What Telemedical Barriers Practices Face and How They Can Manage Them

May 28, 2021The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to many businesses and industries having to rapidly adapt new practices in order to stay profitable, and the healthcare industry is no exception. Although telehealth tools and practices have existed and been used since the Vietnam War, the pandemic has caused many individual healthcare practices to heavily rely on telehealth as a large portion of their service mix in order to continue to provide care for patients. Because of this rapid adoption of telehealth practices in order to combat the restrictions of COVID-19, the telemedicine industry’s revenue has exploded in the last year. Experts predict that telehealth will continue to grow in use beyond the current pandemic, estimating the industry’s worth to be $25 billion by 2025. However, this rapid adoption of telehealth was prompted out of need and has not been without its own barriers that practices now face.Client Alert

Which Entity Should I Form When Starting a New Business?

May 21, 2021As a tax law attorney, friends and acquaintances ask me this question all the time: what type of entity should I form when starting a new business? With many business options available it can be confusing determining which business structure would be appropriate. Below is a general overview of each business structure and the tax responsibilities of each.Client Alert

IMPORTANT UPDATE: IRS Opens Portals for Advanced Child Tax Credit Payments 2021

May 20, 2021The American Rescue Plan Act (the “Act”) expands the Child Tax Credit for tax year 2021. In addition to expanding the Child Tax Credit, the Act provides for advance payments of the 2021 Child Tax Credit. Beginning in July, the IRS will automatically send Advanced Child Tax Credit payments to eligible taxpayers based on their 2020 tax return (or 2019 tax return if the 2020 tax return has not been filed and processed yet). The amount of the advanced payment will be up to $300 each month for each qualifying child under 6 years old at the end of 2021 and $250 each month for each qualifying child between 6 and 17 years old at the end of 2021. For example, if you have 2 qualifying children, one 4 years old and one 8 years old, you may receive up to $550 each month in advance child tax credit payments.Client Alert

Employment Law After Hours: CDC SAYS NO MORE MASKS FOR VACCINATED PEOPLE: What does this mean for employers and employees?

May 17, 2021This morning, ELAH published an emergency episode discussing the questions employers sent us since the CDC’s release of its revised mask guidance late last week. This episode explores questions such as whether an employer can allow vaccinated people to go without masks, while requiring unvaccinated people to wear a mask, whether employers can inspect an employee’s vaccine card, and it discusses the risks of liability an employer faces based on the decisions and policies it makes following the release of this CDC guidance, along with many other questions.
Older posts
Newer posts