Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Nation’s First Conviction Under EKRA

Client Alert

Last month, the Department of Justice announced its first ever guilty plea under the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 (“EKRA”). This came following an investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General as well as the Kentucky Office of Attorney General, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. The investigation uncovered that a Kentucky woman, Theresa C. Merced, had solicited kickbacks from a toxicology laboratory in exchange for urine drug testing referrals. She then lied about the misconduct and the kickbacks that she received when confronted by law enforcement. Thereafter, Ms. Merced attempted to cover her tracks by requesting an alteration of certain financial records.

Ms. Merced appeared before the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky and pleaded guilty to one count of violating EKRA, 18 U.S.C. § 220, among other charges. Sentencing in this case is scheduled for May 1, 2020 and Ms. Merced faces up to 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000.

On October 5, 2018, the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 (“EKRA”) was signed into law as part of the federal government’s ongoing efforts to address and combat the nationwide opioid crisis. Like its predecessor, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, EKRA established prohibitions against certain health care payment arrangements involving federal health care programs as well as instituted criminal sanctions for any statutory violation. What distinguishes EKRA, however, is that its authority applies to only certain entities including recovery homes, clinical treatment facilities, and laboratories.[1]

EKRA makes it illegal for any person, with respect to services covered by any health care benefit program (federal or private) to knowingly and willfully: (1) solicit or receive renumeration in return for referring a patient or patronage to a Subject Entity, or (2) pay or offer any renumeration to induce a referral to a Subject Entity or in exchange for an individual using the services of a Subject Entity.[2] A Subject Entity includes recovery homes, clinical treatment facilities, and laboratories. [3]

Penalties for a violation under EKRA can include a fine of not more than $200,000, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, for each occurrence.[4]

For questions or more information about this topic, contact Jeana Singleton at jmsingleton@bmdllc.com or 330.253.2001, or feel free to contact any member of BMD’s Health Care Practice Group.

[1] Reesa N. Benkoff, Esq. & Dustin T. Wachler, Esq., EKRA: Enactment and Implications of the SUPPORT Act’s New All-Payor Federal Antikickback Law, American Bar Association (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/health_law/publications/aba_health_esource/2018-2019/march/ekra/).

[2] 18 U.S.C. § 220 (2018)

[3] Id.

[4] Id

 

 


Parental Consent May Soon Be Required for Minor Mental Health Services in Ohio

HB 172 proposes repealing a provision in Ohio law that allows minors age 14 and older to consent to limited outpatient mental health services without parental involvement. The bill would require parental consent for all such care and remove related language from other sections of the Ohio Revised Code.

Community Behavioral Health Providers - Supervisor Pricing Changes Begin July 1 [Corrected Date]

Effective June 16, community behavioral health providers wishing to receive reimbursement at the supervisor rate must add the HP or HT Modifier to fee-for-service (FFS) claims. Find out about the new guidelines.

CMS Rescinds EMTALA Guidance for Emergency Abortions

On June 3, 2025, CMS withdrew its 2022 guidance on emergency abortion care under EMTALA, eliminating federal protection for providers in states with abortion restrictions. This policy change could significantly impact how hospitals handle emergency care involving pregnancy complications.

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all Title VII plaintiffs, whether from majority or minority groups, must meet the same evidentiary standard. The decision eliminates the “background circumstances rule” and reinforces equal treatment in workplace discrimination claims.

Understanding Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews: A Critical Guide for Immigrants Facing Removal

In his latest article, Immigration Attorney and former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff offers a clear breakdown of Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews—key procedures for noncitizens seeking protection from persecution or torture. Citing Judge Brian Murphy’s recent ruling on unlawful deportations to South Sudan, Ratliff connects these critical legal standards to current judicial developments. Read the full article at www.removal-defense.com.