CMS Publishes Updated Data on Stark Law Voluntary Disclosures

From Policy & Medicine, by Thomas Sullivan:

  • 2022 was a stand-out year for Stark Law self-disclosures. It was the highest year in both the number of disclosures settled and the aggregate amount of all settlements for the year.
  • In 2020, a total of 36 settlements were reached, ranging from $33 to $952,300, for a total of $4,344,966.
  • In 2021, a total of 27 settlements were reached, ranging from $631 to $1,110,148, totaling $1,988,451.
  • In 2022, a total of 104 settlements were reached, ranging from $299 to $1,171,174, for a total of $9,287,866.

Labs Take Note New OIG Opinion Highlights That Fair Market Value Per Test Payments Can Still Violate the Anti-Kickback Statute Publications

From Bass, Berry & Sims, by Jennifer E. Michael & Danielle M. Sloane:

  • The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued Advisory Opinion 23-06, wherein the OIG reiterated its longstanding position that carving out federal health care program (FHCP) business from an arrangement does not insulate the arrangement from Anti-Kickback Statute liability.
  • The arrangement would involve laboratories that conduct both the Technical Component (TC), preparing the slides, and the Professional Component (PC), interpreting the slides.
  • The Requestor would pay fair market value (FMV) for the TC services from other labs, provide the PC, and then bill commercial insurance for both the TC and PC services. The commercial insurance policies allowed this practice.
  • The arrangement would not involve any service reimbursable by FHCP, but the Requestor did expect the labs to refer FHCP services outside of this arrangement.
  • The Requestor admitted the arrangement was not commercially reasonable because it could provide TC services itself for less than FMV.
  • Despite the FMV payment and FHCP business carve-out, OIG determined that the arrangement could increase the likelihood that the labs or their referring physicians would order federally reimbursable services from Requestor.
  • Citing its Special Fraud Alert on Laboratory Payments to Referring Physicians, OIG reiterated that the Anti-Kickback Statute is violated if even one purpose of the payment is to induce referrals of FHCP business, regardless of whether that payment is FMV.
  • Finally, the proposed arrangement in Advisory Opinion 23-06 failed to meet a safe harbor only because Requestor effectively certified that the arrangement was not commercially reasonable.

HHS OIG Introduces Managed Care Strategic Plan

From Squire Patton Boggs, by Bevan Blake:

  • In response to the continued growth of managed care in government-sponsored health plans over the last several years, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) introduced a new “Strategic Plan for Oversight of Managed Care for Medicare and Medicaid.”
    • A majority of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan.
    • It is estimated that the share of beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage Plans will increase to 60% in ten years.
    • For Medicaid, almost seventy-five percent (75%) of beneficiaries are now enrolled with comprehensive Managed Care Organizations.
  • The Strategic Plan identifies three areas of focus for OIG: (1) promoting access to care for enrollees, (2) providing comprehensive financial oversight, and (3) promoting data accuracy.
  • Promoting Access to Care: OIG will review plans and assess whether they meet network adequacy standards.
  • Financial Oversight: OIG will work with managed care plans to identify and prevent fraud within the plans and to ensure the accuracy of the risk-adjusted capitated payments provided to managed care plans.
  • Data Accuracy: OIG wants provider identifiers on Medicare Advantage encounter data so it can provide oversight of the program, and avoid losses caused by enrollees who are enrolled in two different states or managed care organizations.

Patient Privacy: Preventing Data Leakage in Healthcare

From Security Boulevard, by Chantel Rodrigues:

  • Tracking pixels are tiny, invisible images or code snippets embedded in web pages, emails, or mobile apps. They can be used for legitimate purposes, such as monitoring website traffic, measuring user engagement, and improving user experience.
  • They can also lead to data leakage and privacy breaches, which can constitute HIPAA violations if they compromise patient privacy or security.
  • Identify all pixels and trackers on your web pages and remove the ones that are unnecessary or could be reading sensitive data.
  • Implement JavaScript security controls throughout both the development and Application Security (AppSec) lifecycles.
  • If you do use tracking technologies, ensure they only use and share protected health information (PHI) following HIPAA Privacy Rule guidelines.
  • If you use technology vendors, establish a robust business associate agreement (BAA) to protect PHI.

Exciting News: Home Court Is Expanding

Written by: Carmen Eiker

Welcome to a newly revitalized and reenergized Home Court family law blog.  I am pleased to announce that Whitney Keltch Green and Josh Dossey will be joining me in contributing to the blog.

In addition to their own prior legal training and experience, Whitney and Josh also bring their own unique perspectives and voices to the table.  They will share these in discussing both established and emerging areas of Texas family law, along with their takes on the latest family law stories trending in the media.

Family law is an area of law that can be a topic of interest and discussion even if someone doesn’t personally have a pending case.  This can be through friends, relatives, or co-workers sharing their experiences or celebrity cases in the news.  The internet and social media have exponentially increased the amount of content available.

Family law is perhaps also one of the most nuanced areas of the law.  In Texas, the legal standard applied to children is what is in “the best interest of the children.” The general rule applied to marital property is a “fair and equitable” division.   These principles do not exist in a vacuum, but in the context of the specific circumstances of the children and spouses in any given case. An attorney’s skill in weaving that family’s personal story into this legal tapestry is key to obtaining a result that is the best fit for them. 

This combination of public interest and curiosity with a complex legal landscape can lead to the proliferation of myths and misinformation, which Home Court will speak to and dispel.

This blog is an outline of things to come, much like a petition filed in a family law matter.  The petition begins the process and is a roadmap for the issues to be resolved.  The details of those issues are developed as the facts unfold.  Likewise, you can look forward to upcoming Home Court blogs delivering real talk in an engaging and scintillating manner.

To learn more about Whitney and Josh, please click their names to view their bios.

The post Exciting News: Home Court Is Expanding appeared first on Home Court.

Federal Judge Rules Government Must Demonstrate “But-For” Causation for Anti-Kickback Statute Claims

From ArentFox Schiff LLP, by D. Jacques Smith , Randall A. Brater , Michael F. Dearington , Nadia Patel , Heather M. Zimmer:

  • Chief Judge Dennis Saylor of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the federal government must demonstrate but-for causation in order to prove that Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the manufacturer of the drug Eylea, submitted false claims resulting from violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS).
  • The 2010 amendments provide that any Medicare claim that includes items or services resulting from a violation of the AKS constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA.
  • The government urged that the court to adopt the “exposure” theory of causation set forth in United States ex rel. Greenfield v. Medco Health Sols., Inc., 880 F.3d 89, 96-98 (3d Cir. 2018) — that once the government has proven an AKS violation occurred, to demonstrate causation, it need only prove a causal link that (1) a patient has been “exposed to an illegal recommendation or referral” and (2) that the provider has submitted a reimbursement claim for that patient.
  • In contrast, Regeneron argued for the stricter “but-for causation standard — that the government must demonstrate that an AKS violation occurred and that the remuneration actually caused the provider to provide different medical treatment and thus caused the false claims.
  • The court held that the adoption by Congress of the ‘resulting from’ language in the AKS statute required a finding that the appropriate standard is but-for causation.

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Clarify Key Provisions of the False Claims and Anti-kickback Statutes

From Stevens & Lee, by Charles Honart:

  • The Supreme Court declined to resolve a circuit court split on the issue of causation, to wit, when a provider’s claim for reimbursement results from a violation of the Anti-kickback Statute (“AKS”) for purposes of liability under the False Claims Act (“FCA”).
  • Remuneration: A hospital’s decision not to hire an ophthalmologist in return for a general commitment of continued surgery referrals from another ophthalmologist was not “remuneration” covered by the AKS.
  • Causation: The term “resulting from” means that there must be “but-for” causation, *i.e.*, the claim for reimbursement would not have been submitted but-for the violation of the AKS.
  • This ruling is consistent with the Eighth Circuit in United States ex rel. Cairns v. D.S. Med. LLC, 42 F.4th 828 (8th Cir. 2022), but contrasts with the Third Circuit’s opinion in United States ex rel. Greenfield v. Medco Health Sols., Inc., 880 F.3d 89 (3d Cir. 2018), where the court held there must only be a “link” between the AKS violation and the filing of the claim.

Healthcare AI and HIPAA Compliance

Highlights of AI in Healthcare by Dave Pearson:

  • AI can accumulate a large amount of data from many sources. Using large datasets, AI can realistically re-identify previously de-identified healthcare data.
  • Under the HIPAA de-identification safe harbor, even if you remove the 18 specific identifiers, you cannot have actual knowledge that the information could be used alone or in combination with other information to identify patients. Is it possible to meet that standard in the age of AI?
  • This is an evolving area. These issues and others will continue to develop for years to come.

HHS-OIG Says Anatomic Pathology Lab’s Purchased Service Arrangement Could Violate Anti-Kickback Statute

Barnes & Thornburg, LLP by Jason D. Schultz, Anne B. Compton-Brown, Mary Elizabeth “Lizzie” Ford:

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued an unfavorable opinion addressing an anatomic pathology laboratory that purchases services at fair market value from other labs, and bills commercial payors for such services
  • Even though the proposed arrangement carved out services reimbursed by Federal healthcare programs, the agency determined the arrangement posed a risk of fraud and abuse under the Anti-Kickback Statute
  • The opinion reiterates the HHS-OIG’s long-standing position against arrangements that “carve out” Federal healthcare program business, but still result in increased referrals of Federal healthcare program business outside of the arrangement

NVIDIA and CEO Huang Face Securities Fraud Claims

In a 2-1 split, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived securities fraud claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against chip maker NVIDIA and its CEO, Jensen Huang – claims previously dismissed by the Northern District of California.
In their amended complaint, class action plaintiffs alleged that during the Class Period (May 10, 2017, through November 14, 2018), NVIDIA and three of its officers, including Huang, knowingly or recklessly made materially misleading or false statements regarding the impact of cryptocurrency sales on NVIDIA's financial performance in order to minimize the extent to which NVIDIA's gaming segment depended on the notoriously volatile demand for cryptocurrency. The district court dismissed both Plaintiffs’ first complaint and amended complaint on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead that NVIDIA and its officers’ false or misleading statements were made knowingly or recklessly. Plaintiffs appealed.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, in part, holding that Plaintiffs adequately alleged that (1) Huang made materially false or misleading statements and (2) Huang made those statements with the required scienter.
Falsity Allegations: Although the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ falsity allegations was not addressed by the district court, the majority opinion placed particular importance on the fact that Plaintiffs’ outside expert arrived at the same conclusion as an independent investigation regarding crypto-related revenue during the Class Period. Both concluded NVIDIA understated its crypto-related revenues by about $1.1 billion from May 1, 2017, to July 31, 2018. Plaintiffs pointed to multiple occasions where Huang affirmatively stated that NVIDIA’s crypto-related revenues were $150 million for a quarter – actual revenue from crypto-related sales was nearly $350 million for that quarter.
Because Huang’s statements on quarterly earnings calls and subsequent interviews substantially downplayed crypto-related revenue during the Class Period, the Ninth Circuit concluded this led “investors and analysts to believe that NVIDIA’s crypto-related revenues were much smaller than they actually were.” When NVIDIA’s subsequent earnings disclosures revealed it was significantly more dependent on crypto sales than Huang previously expressed, its stock price dropped 28.5%.
The dissent was critical of the majority’s approach, pointing out that the Ninth Circuit has never allowed an outside expert to serve as the primary source of falsity allegations under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Moreover, the dissent noted that plaintiffs’ expert did not rely on NVIDIA’s internal data or documents, but instead relied almost exclusively on generic market research and post hoc calculations.
Scienter Requirement: The Ninth Circuit majority then concluded that Plaintiffs sufficiently pled scienter under the PSLRA with respect to Huang’s statements. Here, the majority relied on confidential statements from former NVIDIA employees, who “confirmed that Huang personally reviewed NVIDIA’s sales data through [NVIDIA’s] centralized sales database” and that “Huang was the most intimately involved CEO he had ever experienced.” On this basis, Plaintiffs’ amended petition provided sufficient particularity to support the probability that a person in the position occupied by the former employees would possess the information alleged. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs sufficiently stated a claim for relief under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against Huang and NVIDIA. The majority further reasoned that “[w]hile the PSLRA significantly altered pleading requirements in private securities fraud litigation, it did not impose an insurmountable standard.”
Going Forward: NVIDIA’s dominant position in the A.I. chip market and the promise of generative A.I.’s future development has contributed to NVIDIA’s recent $1 trillion market capitalization. In fact, NVIDIA’s stock price has increased by over 11,000% during the last ten years. Given this Ninth Circuit reversal at the pleadings stage, investors will likely fix a keen eye on how NVIDIA categorizes and discloses its revenue from A.I.-related sales.