Category:

Fighting Back Against CMS Recoupment: A New Option

November 13th, 2018 by

CMS recoupmentBy: Matt Fischer

Fighting a large extrapolated overpayment demand from a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC)?  Facing bankruptcy?  Appealed to the Office of Medicare Hearing and Appeals (OMHA) with no hearing date in sight?  For providers and business owners who answer yes, there is a new potential remedy…a temporary injunction.

Multiple health care businesses have scored wins this year in their fight to prevent CMS from recouping payments before having an opportunity for an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing.  The similarity?  They each sought a temporary injunction in federal court.  Arguing that the alleged recoupments would cause the businesses to close, employees to lose their jobs and patients would be forced to change their providers, the businesses were granted temporary injunctions enjoining CMS from starting recoupment until the ALJ appeal stage had reached a conclusion.       read more

The Latest Healthcare Fraud Enforcement Tool: The Travel Act

October 9th, 2018 by

healthcare fraudBy: Matt Fischer

Federal law enforcement has traditionally prosecuted individuals utilizing healthcare fraud and abuse laws such as the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, the Physician Self-Referral Law also known as the Stark Law as well as other administrative tools including exclusions and civil monetary penalties.  In addition to these laws, federal law enforcement also has at their disposal other fraudulent act statutes such as mail and wire fraud.  The facts of a case, however, may not provide for federal standing.  For example, when individuals take out federal government payors out of the picture or from an arrangement as a way of avoiding federal jurisdiction.  The new solution to this issue…a law enacted in 1961, the Travel Act. read more

Civil Investigative Demand: What to Expect in a Heightened Regulatory Environment

November 6th, 2017 by

DOJ InvestigationBy: Matt Fischer

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has the power to issue civil investigative demand (CIDs) when the DOJ has reason to believe that a person may be in possession of information relevant to a false claims investigation.  The DOJ is empowered to serve CIDs by the False Claims Act (FCA).  A CID is similar to a grand jury subpoena; however, it provides greater versatility in the use of the information obtained.  In addition to requiring the production of documents similar to a grand jury subpoena, CIDs demand other types of discovery responses and the information gathered may be shared between the civil and criminal sides of an investigation.  Given this flexibility and with the passage of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (which changed the law to allow issuance of a CID without the personal signature of the Attorney General), the DOJ has substantially increased its use of CIDs in the realm of healthcare law enforcement.     read more