Has your attorney ever told you to do your best to comply with certain safe harbors to the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute, and you’ll be likely to survive scrutiny under the Florida Patient Brokering Act (the PBA)? If you’ve heard that, it’s time to re-examine that relationship. In the last month, the Patient Brokering Act has been amended, and then interpreted by a court of law in a way that affects all healthcare providers.
The Patient Brokering Act has been used in recent years to prosecute abuses in the addiction treatment industry. Other healthcare providers subject to the act have largely been uninvolved in these prosecutions. However, the PBA has been remolded 4 times in the past 5 years as a means to tailor it to allow for prosecutions of bad actors in healthcare, including addiction treatment. One item should be made clear: the PBA applies to any facility at all that is licensed by the Agency for Healthcare Administration (AHCA) or practitioner licensed by the Department of Health (DOH), including physicians, surgery centers, home health agencies, skilled nursing facilities, hospitals, DME providers, diagnostic imaging facilities, clinical laboratories, pharmacies and many other. During the legislative process, barely any healthcare industry representatives (from any provider group) showed up to any legislative workshops or produced counterbalancing input or language proposals that reflected a broader perspective.
Concepts that drive sober home relationships like Anti-Kickback Statute, Patient Brokering Act and Safe Harbor have become ingrained in the minds of nearly every addiction treatment provider’s thought process, especially in Florida with the development of the Sober Home Task Force. Providers now seem to fully embrace ideas like–
There’s a federal law (the Anti-Kickback Statute, the “AKS”) that can bring criminal liability for marketing done incorrectly;
There’s a state law, the Florida Patient Brokering Act (“PBA”), that can do the same;
Complying with the federal safe harbors and the bona fide employee exception is important, even when there are no state or federal healthcare program dollars involved;
Paying anyone for marketing, not just on a commission based sales model, without fully appreciate the applicable laws is dangerous, costly and invites criminal inquiries and liability; and
Achieving compliance with applicable federal law should be part of any recovery business’ overall compliance plan.
Recovery providers must become familiar with not only the AKS and state restrictions like the PBA, but also the law’s permitted examples, so called “Safe Harbors,” which specify specifically permitted arrangements (42 CFR 1001.952). The “personal services arrangement and management contract” Safe Harbor, for instance, has particular application in the area of marketing, as does the AKS exception for “bona fide employment arrangements,” which apply to “bona fide” W-2 employees (entailing direction, supervision and control), but not independent contractor relationships.
Less than a year ago that medical device developer, Olympus Corp, agreed to pay a $646 million settlement to resolve claims of illegal kickbacks to physicians and hospitals. This is considered to be the largest settlement amount in the history of violations to the Anti-kickback Statute. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“Anti-Kickback Statute”) is a criminal statute that prohibits the exchange (or offer to exchange), of anything of value, in an effort to induce or reward the referral of federal health care program business. Conviction for a single violation under the Anti-Kickback Statute may result in a fine of up to $25,000 and imprisonment for up to five (5) years. In addition, a conviction will result in mandatory exclusion from participation in federal health care programs. The government may also assess civil money penalties, which could result in treble damages plus $50,000 for each violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute.
Between 2006 and 2011, Olympus offered consulting deals among many other bribes to influence physicians to order and prescribe Olympus medical devices. These consulting agreements provided for large up-front payments to physicians under the guise of medical device development. Olympus failed to focus on compliance and didn’t have policies and procedures in place to prevent illegal arrangements such as these. These physicians were retained as consultants, but most provided very little consulting services; they were utilized as device promoters. Physicians have a duty to order medical devices solely on the traditional standards of quality, price, and appropriateness for the medical conditions treated. Moreover, the ordering of medical devices by a physician must never be influenced by personal financial gain.
When people ask me what I do, I used to say “I’m a transactional health care attorney. I represent health care practitioners in their business deals. I don’t do malpractice.” That response does little to wipe the blank stare off my questioner’s face, and even I have to stifle the urge to yawn. My new and improved response is that “I spend a lot of time advising health care practitioners how they can share fees with people who refer them patients.” Now I get invited to all sorts of cocktail parties !!!
Practitioners split fees with one another for a variety of reasons; and they very often do not realize that a particular arrangement involves a split-fee arrangement, or that split-fee arrangements are often illegal in Florida. The purpose of this article is to provide practitioners with a general overview of the concepts underlying the prohibition against split-fee arrangements in Florida, in the context of three common business arrangements.
Health law is the federal, state, and local law, rules, regulations and other jurisprudence among providers, payers and vendors to the healthcare industry and its patient and delivery of health care services; all with an emphasis on operations, regulatory and transactional legal issues.