Florida Medical Device Company Settles $16 Million Case

Enforcement against medical device companies is not new and yet, these companies continue to engage in schemes that land them in hot water.  Frequently the same schemes are repeated over and over- some form of payment by the device company to a physician who selects/recommends the device to patients.  In some cases, the payment is in the form of an honorarium for speaking engagements.  In others, the payment is an all-expense paid travel to attend device company-sponsored “CME” in exotic locations or consulting fees for assisting in the evaluation and design of the device.

Announced yesterday by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), is the settlement of allegations against Florida-based Arthrex Inc., a medical device company that specializes in orthopedic products.  Under the settlement agreement, Arthrex will pay $16 million for allegedly paying kickbacks to an orthopedic surgeon (Dr. Peter Millett) in Colorado.  The “payment” in this case was structured as royalty payments purportedly to compensate the orthopedic surgeon for his “contributions” to the development of two of Arthrex’s products when in fact the “payment” was intended to induce the surgeon’s recommendation/selection of the Arthrex products.  By offering the payments to the surgeon with the intent to induce purchase of Arthrex’ products which were then billed to Medicare, Arthrex violated the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) as well as the False Claims Act.Continue reading

Compounding Pharmacy Enforcement Shows no Signs of Slowing

There’s certainly a lot of enforcement activity against compounding pharmacies these days.  The ramp-up began around 2012 after a fungal meningitis outbreak that caused 64 deaths and many more infections related to the compounding activities at New England Compounding Centers.  That heightened scrutiny continues to rock the compounding pharmacy world, not just from the drug quality, safety, and security standpoint, but also from the standpoint of the potential fraud and abuse inherent in the pricing of ingredients and the final compounded product as well as relationships between compounding pharmacies and the physicians who refer to them.

LATEST ENFORCEMENT ACTION

Announced yesterday by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the latest enforcement action is against Professional Compounding Centers of America Inc. (PCCA), a Houston-based supplier of wholesale compounding ingredients to other pharmacies.  In many prior enforcement actions, compounding pharmacies have been charged in various schemes to defraud the federal government by filing false claims for prescriptions that were not medically necessary or not requested by patients and paying kickbacks to prescribing physicians.  While similar in some ways to prior enforcement actions, this one differs because in this case, the DOJ reached back to the wholesaler of the compounding ingredients that were sold to the pharmacies that then submitted inflated claims to TRICARE.  Here, the DOJ nabbed PPCA in a complaint alleging False Claims Act violations, specifically that PCCA reported fraudulent and inflated Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) for the compounding ingredients that it sold to pharmacies.  Those inflated AWPs resulted in pharmacies submitting inflated claims to TRICARE, the federal payer for military personnel and their dependents.Continue reading

The Debate Over Physician Owned Hospitals

florida healthcare law firm physician owned hospitals

florida healthcare law firm physician owned hospitalsBy: Dave Davidson

The debate over the pro’s and con’s of physician-owned hospitals has been raging for decades. Physician-owners say their hospitals are more patient-focused, provide higher quality care, obtain better outcomes and therefore receive higher patient satisfaction scores. They also point out their convenience and efficiency.

Opponents argue that physician-ownership leads to overutilization and cherry-picking of only the best patients. The less-desirable patients (both clinically and financially) are then left to be taken care of by the community hospitals. For those reasons, both the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals remain strongly opposed to physician-owned hospitals.

Federally, the Stark Law includes an exception which allows a physician to refer patients to a hospital in which the physician has an ownership interest, so long as the ownership interest is in the entire hospital, and not just a subdivision of the hospital. However, in 2010, the federal government weighed in again on the issue, and passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which includes provisions which (i) restrict physician referrals to hospitals in which they hold an ownership interest; (ii) restrict any increases in physician-ownership of a hospital; and (iii) restrict expansion of physician-owned hospital facilities. CMS has granted exceptions to these restrictions, but those have been limited to rural hospitals and high Medicaid hospitals, and attempts to amend the law have failed.Continue reading

Physician Owned Hospitals Looming Large in Florida

physician owned hospitals

physician owned hospitalsBy: Jeff Cohen

Florida may become the “next Texas” on the issue of physician owned specialty hospitals.  “Next Texas,” since there are a number of examples where the concept launched (and also flopped).  Done right, such facilities could be a better fit for many patients, depending of course on patient co morbidity issues.  In theory, they would be the perfect bridge between surgery centers and regular acute care hospitals.  But the ability of such specialty focused care suggests a better staffing model and more targeted and efficient overhead, instead of the broad-based overhead of an acute care hospital at is spread out aver all cases, including those where overhead allocation is viewed as “just an expense.” Continue reading

The OIG Addresses Free Patient Transportation Issues

vanBy: Jacqueline Bain

The issue of whether a medical provider can provide free patient transport is one that we are asked to look into a few times every year. Aside from the liability issues that it raises, it is one that we have never been able to justify from an Anti-Kickback and Patient Brokering perspective.  The fact is, even given the good intentions of most providers to allow their patients easier access to healthcare, transporting patients to and from your facility or practice is providing them with something of value in return for coming to see you.  However, under slightly different facts than we are usually asked to consider the question, last week, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) came to a different conclusion.

The OIG issued an advisory opinion upon the request of a hospital system who had asked whether it could provide free transportation to persons who had limited access to public transportation to access the hospital’s facilities. The hospital system offered that the town had inadequate and infrequent public transportation services which would act as a barrier to healthcare for local residents.  The hospital system offered the following facts for consideration:Continue reading

When is Marketing An Illegal Kickback?

kickbackHealthcare professionals and businesses are routinely barraged with people who claim to be able to generate business for them.  The business of healthcare is like none other in its abhorrence of anything that even smells like payment for patient referrals, so professionals and businesses alike have to be extremely cautious and well advised in crafting marketing and related business-enhancing relationships.

The federal Anti Kickback Statute (“AKS”) is a criminal law that arises in the context of individuals and entities that pay or receive anything of value in exchange for referring a patient whose care is compensated in any way by a state or federal healthcare program.  Violations of the statute are punishable by a maximum fine of $25,000 and/or imprisonment up to five years.  Federal courts have applied the statute to any arrangement where even one purpose of the arrangement was to obtain money for the referral of services or an attempt to induce additional referrals. Its exceptions (“Safe Harbors”) include permissible arrangements for independent contractors and employees, both of which are elusive because of the common requirement that the arrangement not vary based on the value or volume of business between the parties.  The “value or volume” aspect of the regulations flies in the face of percentage based compensation arrangements (which seem to be the rule in marketing relationships).Continue reading

Husband and Wife Kickback Conviction Not Surprising

The convictions of a husband and wife were upheld on February 2nd by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  The couple was convicted of soliciting and receiving kickbacks, among other things.  They argued that, in fact, all they did was to recommend physicians refer patients to a certain imaging center.  Their argument was that the doctors used their own judgment in referring patients.  Audio and video records of their activities, however, supported the prosecution’s case that in fact the couple actually paid cash to referring physicians for referrals made by the doctors to the imaging center.  The couple will spend about two years in prison.  The court did not address the legal issue of whether or not commission based compensation arrangements for marketing services were permissible.