Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Sharp Rise in False Claims Act Cases - Navigating the FCA Waters

Client Alert
May 5, 2023


The Department of Justice has announced that False Claims Act (FCA) settlements and judgments exceeded $2 billion in the Fiscal Year 2022 and $5.6 billion in the Fiscal Year 2021. A large portion of such settlements and judgments involve healthcare businesses such as physician practices, hospitals, and pharmacies. The number of FCA cases has increased over the past several years, and it is evident that governments on both the state and federal levels are becoming more aggressive in their use of the FCA to obtain recoveries.

The FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., was enacted in 1863 during the Civil War to counteract fraud by companies selling supplies to the Union Army. War profiteers would swindle the Union Army by providing rotten food, worn-out garments, and defective weapons. Today, the FCA is one of the government's strongest anti-fraud statutes. It imposes liability on individuals and businesses that defraud and cause financial loss to the federal government. The FCA also provides the potential for rewards for whistleblowers who report such fraudulent activities.

FCA claims can also be a source of stress and complication for businesses when they find themselves to be the target of either a federal investigation or state investigation. Whenever there is government money at stake, there is a chance for an FCA claim. Among other industries, FCA investigations are commonly seen among healthcare businesses that bill state and federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Since fraud in the healthcare industry can lead to rising healthcare costs, the government is keen on cracking down on such activity.

Recently, on April 18, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the FCA’s scienter, or mental state, requirement. To prove violation of the FCA, the statute requires that a defendant “knowingly” file false claims for payment. The term “knowingly” is defined within the statute to mean a person that acts with actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard. Circuit courts are split on how to interpret and apply the knowledge element of the FCA, and based on the Supreme Court’s decision, there will be a large impact on healthcare defendants and their businesses as well as anyone who contracts with, or receives money from, a federal program. A broader interpretation of the FCA would unnecessarily target and stifle healthcare, and other businesses, for simple errors in daily operations. This goes against the intended application of the FCA, which was to prevent fraudulent activity.

Violation of the FCA can potentially lead to liability for treble damages, or three times the actual losses, so it is imperative to have the proper legal counsel as you navigate the FCA waters. Whether you are facing allegations of violating the FCA or you want to put in place safeguards to ensure your business does not face such allegations, our team and BMD is ready, willing, and able to help. Our team has experience successfully defending against FCA claims and large qui tam cases, and they would be happy to discuss any concerns you may have. Questions should be directed to Shalini Bhatia at sbhatia@bmdllc.com or 216.658.2214.

FCAHealthcare
Client Alert

Ohio Department of Health Releases Updated Charge Limits for Medical Records

March 7, 2022Under Ohio law, a healthcare provider or medical records company that receives a request for a copy of a patient's medical record may charge an amount in accordance with the limits set forth in Ohio Revised Code Section 3701.741. The allowable amounts are increased or decreased annually by the average percentage of increase or decrease in the consumer price index for all urban consumers, prepared by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the immediately preceding calendar year over the calendar year immediately preceding that year, as reported by the Bureau. The Director of the Ohio Department of Health makes this determination and adjusts the amounts accordingly. The list is then published, here.Client Alert

No Surprises Act Compliance (Published by NAMAS, 2/25/22)

March 7, 2022The Department of Health and Human Services published three parts to the No Surprises Act towards the end of 2021, which took effect January 1, 2022. The Act is intended to protect consumers from “balance billing,” which occurs when a patient receives a bill with a higher price than they may have anticipated because they did not have knowledge that the provider or facility was out-of-network. The purpose of this article is to note certain requirements that compliance employees will need to be aware of at their facilities, including notice and consent, good faith estimates, and public disclosures.Client Alert

No Surprises Act and You (Published in the SCMS Winter 2022 Newsletter)

March 3, 2022Legislation has been adopted by the United States Congress and the Ohio Legislature known as the “No Surprises Act” which attempts to regulate billing by professionals and facilities to patients who are not in networks with those facilities or providers at those facilities. The federal bill was triggered by some sensational news stories of patients being billed for tens of thousands of dollars for emergency care when the hospital was out of the network under the patient’s insurance plans.Client Alert

Are You Impacted by the Project Labor Agreement Executive Order?

February 28, 2022Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are a quasi-collective bargaining agreement between employers and unions. They establish the terms and conditions of employment, including dispute resolution. They are put into place on specific projects and apply to the contractor, whether it is union or non-union. Employees hired on the project will be treated as union.Client Alert

No Surprises Act Update: Federal Judge Strikes Portions of the No Surprises Act

February 25, 2022In a win for providers, a Texas federal court granted the Texas Medical Association’s (TMA) motion for summary judgment and struck down portions of a federal rule that establishes a reimbursement rate arbitration process between payors and providers under the No Surprises Act (NSA).
Older posts
Newer posts