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


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.


Primary Care Practice Officially Defined in Florida for APRNs Practicing Autonomously

As many providers in Florida are aware, House Bill 607 (the “Bill”), which was passed in February of last year, gives certain APRNs in Florida the ability to practice autonomously. The only catch is that they must work in primary practice. When the Bill was initially passed, there was question as to what was exactly considered primary care, absent a definition from the Florida Board of Nursing. However, as of February 25, 2021, “primary care practice” has officially been defined.

Part II of the No Surprises Act

The Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) published Part II of the No Surprises Act on September 30, 2021, which will take effect on January 1, 2022. The new guidance, in large part, focuses on the independent dispute resolution process that was briefly mentioned in Part I of the Act. In addition, there is now guidance on good faith estimate requirements, the patient-provider dispute resolution processes, and added external review provisions.

Safer Federal Workforce Task Force - Guidance for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors

The Safer Federal Workforce Task Force has issued its Guidance for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors (Guidance). Note that the Guidance applies only to “covered contracts,” which are contracts that include the clause (Clause) set forth in Sec. 2(a) of Executive Order 14042 (Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors). The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FARC) is to conduct rulemaking and take related action to ensure that the Clause is incorporated into federal contracts. Until that happens, federal contractors likely will not see the Clause in its contracts. Following is a broad summary of the Guidance.

Banking & Cannabis: The Next Frontier Webinar

On Tuesday, September 21st, BMD’s own Banking and Cannabis Partner, Stephen Lenn, hosted a star-studded cast of panelists in a webinar titled Banking & Cannabis: Cannabis Lending, The Next Frontier. The webinar, which had to suspend registrations when hitting a maximum cap of 500, aimed to explore issues related to cannabis and banking, with a particular emphasis on lending. With the sponsorship and support of the Bankers Associations of Arizona, Colorado, Ohio and Utah, Steve was able to recruit an elite group of bankers, bank regulators, cannabis industry players, and cannabis regulators, who took the topic head on. The discussion kicked off with an opening from the keynote speaker, VP of Congressional Affairs for the American Bankers Association, Tanner Daniel.

Is Your Bonus System Creating Wage and Hour Violations? A Hidden Impact of the Labor Shortages

As employers struggle with attracting and retaining talent, many have turned to incentives such as Signing Bonuses and Retention Bonuses. In doing so, employers may be inadvertently exposing themselves to overtime law violations. Employers with non-exempt employees know that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires an overtime premium to non-exempt for work in excess of 40 hours per week. However, all too often, employers miscalculate the “regular rate” of pay, which is used for calculating the “overtime rate.” The miscalculation is becoming more prevalent in today’s market when employers fail to include supplemental compensation, such as certain Signing Bonuses and Retention Bonuses into the regular rate of pay. An example: A non-exempt employee is hired at a rate of $20 per hour, and also receives a retention bonus of $1,200 after working for 12 weeks. In her 11th week of work, employee works 50 hours. In her 14th week of work, employee works 50 hours. What is her paycheck in week 11? What is her paycheck in week 14?