Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Sharp Rise in False Claims Act Cases - Navigating the FCA Waters

Client Alert
May 5, 2023


The Department of Justice has announced that False Claims Act (FCA) settlements and judgments exceeded $2 billion in the Fiscal Year 2022 and $5.6 billion in the Fiscal Year 2021. A large portion of such settlements and judgments involve healthcare businesses such as physician practices, hospitals, and pharmacies. The number of FCA cases has increased over the past several years, and it is evident that governments on both the state and federal levels are becoming more aggressive in their use of the FCA to obtain recoveries.

The FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., was enacted in 1863 during the Civil War to counteract fraud by companies selling supplies to the Union Army. War profiteers would swindle the Union Army by providing rotten food, worn-out garments, and defective weapons. Today, the FCA is one of the government's strongest anti-fraud statutes. It imposes liability on individuals and businesses that defraud and cause financial loss to the federal government. The FCA also provides the potential for rewards for whistleblowers who report such fraudulent activities.

FCA claims can also be a source of stress and complication for businesses when they find themselves to be the target of either a federal investigation or state investigation. Whenever there is government money at stake, there is a chance for an FCA claim. Among other industries, FCA investigations are commonly seen among healthcare businesses that bill state and federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Since fraud in the healthcare industry can lead to rising healthcare costs, the government is keen on cracking down on such activity.

Recently, on April 18, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the FCA’s scienter, or mental state, requirement. To prove violation of the FCA, the statute requires that a defendant “knowingly” file false claims for payment. The term “knowingly” is defined within the statute to mean a person that acts with actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard. Circuit courts are split on how to interpret and apply the knowledge element of the FCA, and based on the Supreme Court’s decision, there will be a large impact on healthcare defendants and their businesses as well as anyone who contracts with, or receives money from, a federal program. A broader interpretation of the FCA would unnecessarily target and stifle healthcare, and other businesses, for simple errors in daily operations. This goes against the intended application of the FCA, which was to prevent fraudulent activity.

Violation of the FCA can potentially lead to liability for treble damages, or three times the actual losses, so it is imperative to have the proper legal counsel as you navigate the FCA waters. Whether you are facing allegations of violating the FCA or you want to put in place safeguards to ensure your business does not face such allegations, our team and BMD is ready, willing, and able to help. Our team has experience successfully defending against FCA claims and large qui tam cases, and they would be happy to discuss any concerns you may have. Questions should be directed to Shalini Bhatia at sbhatia@bmdllc.com or 216.658.2214.

FCAHealthcare
Client Alert

Will Federal Legislation Open Cannabis Acquisition Floodgate?

February 18, 2021Are potential buyers quietly lobbying at federal and state levels to kick open the door to launch a new round of strategic acquisitions? Will presently pending federal legislation, the SAFE and MORE Acts, providing safe harbor for banks and re- or de-scheduling marijuana, be sufficient to mobilize into action major non-cannabis companies that previously shunned the cannabis industry due to the unknown implications of owning businesses whose activities are illegal under federal law?Client Alert

The Future of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

February 3, 2021Over the last year we all have had to adjust to the new normal ushered in by the coronavirus pandemic. Schools and daycares closed, businesses transitioned from in-office work to work from home, bars and restaurants have closed their doors...all to slow the spread and try to prevent this pandemic from spiraling out of control. The start of the pandemic was utter pandemonium. Working parents trying to balance both caring for their now at-home children and their livelihood. Businesses trying to decide how to implement leave policies with limited information. Employees determining if they could financially afford to take time off. We were all flying by the seat of our pants trying to adjust to our new normal.Client Alert

Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Medical Statute of Limitations

February 1, 2021The Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in late December that clarifies and finalizes the Ohio law regarding the period of time in which patients can assert claims for medical malpractice. The Court was examining the interplay between three different statutes being the statute of limitations, the statute of repose, and the savings statute.Client Alert

Ohio Hospitals and Healthcare Clinics: It’s Time to Revisit Your Billing and Collection Practices

February 1, 2021According to a recent Cuyahoga County case, certain healthcare entities may not be protected from liability when engaging in unfair or deceptive billing acts. This decision is consistent with the growing trend across the country to encourage price transparency and eliminate unfair surprise billing practices by health care organizations. Now is the time for hospitals and other health care organizations to revisit their billing and collection policies and procedures to confirm that they are legally defensible and consistent with best practices.Client Alert

HIPAA Business Associate Agreements: Why These Contracts Matter

January 27, 2021No one loves drafting, reading or negotiating HIPAA Business Associate Agreements (BAAs). Yet many of us need to do so, and some of us do so daily. They are often boring, dense and technical, but BAAs are important from both a legal and a business perspective, and they deserve our attention. Failure to enter a BAA when one is required can constitute a HIPAA violation that results in substantial liability, as demonstrated by certain recent Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) settlements.1 A business associate who makes a disclosure that is not authorized by the applicable BAA or required by law can be subject to civil and, in some cases, criminal penalties. Further, parties are often presented with BAAs that contain onerous one-sided indemnification and other provisions that can be devasting to an organization in the event of a HIPAA breach. The significance of a BAA is often not fully understood by the parties until something goes wrong (e.g., a HIPAA security incident or breach, an Office of Civil Rights (OCR) audit or a fracture in the relationship between the parties) and, at that point, there is limited opportunity to mitigate legal and business risk. Ideally, attention should be given at the commencement of the business associate relationship, when the parties are able, to thoughtfully addressing regulatory requirements, planning and preparing for potential adverse events and appropriately allocating risk among the parties. As with most healthcare regulatory compliance initiatives, a proactive approach with respect to BAAs is preferable. This article provides a broad overview of certain BAA requirements and some practical negotiating tips for the parties involved.
Older posts
Newer posts