Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Supreme Court Issues Major False Claims Act Decision

Client Alert
June 5, 2023

Supreme Court Rules that Liability under the False Claims Act (FCA) Depends on the BELIEF of Defendant

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday, June 1, 2023 that liability in FCA suits depends on whether defendants believed their claims were false, not whether they had made an "objectively reasonable" interpretation of law or regulation. The decision rejects the recent attempts to shift the scienter element’s knowledge standard in FCA cases, clarifying instead that an assessment of a defendant's subjective beliefs about potential wrongdoing is required. In the opinion, Justice Thomas writes “…what matters for an FCA case is whether the defendant knew the claim was false. Thus, if respondents correctly interpreted the relevant phrase and believed their claims were false, then they could have known their claims were false.”

At oral arguments, the government asked the Court to preserve the relevance of subjective intent standard. The Government argued that following the Seventh Circuit’s precedent of “objectively reasonable” interpretation would undermine enforcement and incentivize individuals to come up with crafty, post-hoc arguments for why a claim it submitted was not false. The Court agreed, and its ruling allows the government to rely on deliberate ignorance or recklessness of the defendant instead of having to prove actual knowledge.

The FCA was passed under the Lincoln administration and underwent significant strengthening through a congressional amendment in 1986. 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. Since its amendment in 1986, the Department of Justice has successfully utilized the Act to secure settlements and judgments amounting to over $70 billion, mainly in healthcare and defense contracting cases.

The FCA plays a substantial role in balancing the power between the government and industry. Along with being used to combat health care fraud, the FCA serves as the government’s primary tool to redress false claims involving a multitude of other government operations and functions. In recent years, healthcare fraud has been the leading source of the Department’s FCA settlements and judgments, as the FCA has played a critical role in combatting the opioid epidemic and the growing issues surrounding the Medicare Advantage program. 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.

FCA claims can be a source of concern and complexity for businesses when they find themselves as the subject of either a federal investigation or state investigation. Whenever there is government money at stake, there is a chance for an FCA claim. Since fraud in the healthcare industry can lead to rising healthcare costs, the government is keen on cracking down on such activity.  The unanimous ruling decidedly addresses with the FCA’s knowledge element, overturning the Seventh Circuit’s use of an "objectively reasonable" interpretation of law or regulation, and instead holding that an FCA case hinges on whether the defendant knew the claim was false.

Should you have any questions concerning the CMS Final Rule, please contact BMD President Matt Heinle at maheinle@bmdllc.com, BMD Vice President Amanda Waesch at alwaesch@bmdllc.com, or Healthcare Partner Bryan Meek at bmeek@bmdllc.com.

COVID-19Vaccine PolicyHealthcareHealth LawAmanda L. Waesch
Client Alert

Supreme Court Rules that Employers Must Show Substantial Increased Costs to Legally Decline Employees’ Religious Accommodation Requests

June 29, 2023On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Groff v. DeJoy that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) employers must show, in order to decline religious accommodations, that the burden of granting religious accommodations to employees will result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of an employer’s particular business, thus amending the prior, simple standard of a “de minimis” undue hardship.Client Alert

Recent HIPAA Breach Settlements - Lessons Learned

June 19, 2023According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the consequences for providers may include settlements of $30,000 to $240,000. OCR recently released two settlements for improper breaches of protected health information (PHI) that are good examples of the major monetary penalties that can result from common HIPAA mistakes.Client Alert

Telehealth Flexibility Updates: HIPAA, DEA, and CMS

May 12, 2023The Covid-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) officially ended on May 11, 2023. But what does that mean for telehealth, a field that expanded exponentially during the PHE? Fortunately, many of the flexibilities will remain intact, at least temporarily. This client alert presents a brief overview of the timelines that providers need to follow, but for a more comprehensive review of telehealth flexibilities and when they will endClient Alert, Multimedia

WEBINAR SERIES RECAP | Ending the Public Health Emergency + Post-Pandemic Check-Up

May 10, 2023Some may take the position that the rest of the country already returned to a new “normal” following the COVID-19 pandemic.  But healthcare providers continue to implement COVID protocols and navigate the ever-changing healthcare regulations at both the federal and state levels.  It is important for healthcare providers to take time for a “Healthcare Check-Up” with the start of 2023 and the ending of the Public Health Emergency (“PHE”).Client Alert

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

May 5, 2023Recently, 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.
Older posts
Newer posts