FCA/Investigations & Enforcement

Mintz Levin and ML Strategies will host the 3rd Annual Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Industry Summit on May 8, 2018!  This year’s summit will take place in Boston and we are thrilled to announce that Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker will be the keynote speaker.  The Summit brings together stakeholders and thought leaders to discuss current hot topics facing manufacturers, PBMs, payors, pharmacies, and other providers.  This year’s Summit will include sessions on:

  • The evolving drug supply chain – distruptor models and the Amazon effect
  • Addressing drug pricing and supply chain economics – government investigations and ERISA litigation
  • The uncertain state of the 340B program
  • Government enforcement targeting financial relationships
  • Combatting the opioid crisis

For additional information on the Summit, including the full agenda and registration information, please visit our event website.

Mintz Levin’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Group released its most recent Health Care Qui Tam Update yesterday.  This Update analyzes 56 qui tam cases unsealed in October and November of last year. None of the 56 cases in this Update were unsealed within the statutorily-mandated 60 days, but one case was unsealed in 71 days. Additional trends include:

  • Cases were most often brought against hospitals, health systems, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and pharmacies;
  • The government intervened in 20% of the cases;
  • Of the cases in which the government declined to intervene, 60% continued to be litigated (at least initially) by the relators; and
  • Cases continue to be brought most often by former or current employees.

Click here to read the full Update.

 

Last week, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that it had entered into an agreement with a Massachusetts-based medical device manufacturer to settle allegations that the Company had violated the False Claims Act by purchasing lavish meals for physicians to induce them to use heart pumps manufactured by the Company.

The government’s allegations are not particularly novel, but do serve as an important reminder to health care providers and suppliers that it is important to institute, and remain vigilant about, sound compliance practices across all areas of their business.  These allegations also make clear that the government continues to be focused on providers’ and suppliers’ sales and marketing practices. Continue Reading Recent FCA Settlement Shows That What’s Old Is New in Health Care Fraud Enforcement

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently intervened in a False Claims Act (FCA) case that raises a variety of interesting allegations, including payment of kickbacks by a compounding pharmacy to contracted marketing companies in the form of percentage-based compensation, to TRICARE beneficiaries in the form of copayment waivers, and to physicians who submitted prescriptions without seeing patients.  According to the complaint, Patient Care America (PCA), a Florida compounding pharmacy, implemented a scheme to manipulate the compounding formula for pain and scar creams that resulted in the submission of false claims to TRICARE.  The complaint also names two of PCA’s senior executives (one of which has since left the company) as well as the private equity firm that owns a controlling interest in PCA. Continue Reading DOJ Intervenes in False Claims Act Case Against a Compounding Pharmacy and a Private Equity Firm

As we predicted in our year-end post on civil and criminal enforcement trends, 2018 is already off to strong start in opioid-related enforcement against individual providers and associated practices.  Earlier this month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a Michigan physician, Dr. Rodney Moret, was sentenced to 75 months in prison for his role in conspiracies to distribute prescription pills illegally and to defraud Medicare. The conduct alleged against Dr. Moret is particularly extreme, but nevertheless reflects the government’s commitment to ferreting out opioid-related misconduct. Continue Reading Federal Enforcement Actions Continue to Focus on Opioid-Related Misconduct

Mintz Levin’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Group recently published its most recent Health Care Qui Tam Update. This Update analyzes the 47 health care-related qui tam cases unsealed in August and September 2017.  Highlights from this Update include:

  • a relatively high rate of intervention;
  • cases filed in 30 different courts;
  • cases brought against a variety of different health care providers;
  • almost half of the cases filed by current or former employees; and
  • faster times for unsealing cases.

Continue Reading Mintz Levin’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Group Releases New Qui Tam Update

Two new DOJ policies about False Claims Act enforcement became public last week. First, DOJ’s Associate Attorney General announced a new civil enforcement policy that instructs False Claims Act litigators not to use any sub-regulatory guidance to create legal obligations. Second, we learned that DOJ’s Civil Fraud section instructed all False Claims Act litigators to consider whether declined qui tam actions should be dismissed under the Department’s authority in Section 3730(c)(2)(A) of the False Claims Act. The central theme of this policy is that dismissal of qui tam actions is warranted when it is in the federal interest to do so, and the policy clearly sets out seven such federal interests. Continue Reading Perspective on DOJ Pivot on FCA Enforcement Policy

In both civil and criminal enforcement proceedings, 2017 was perhaps most notable for the cases brought against individual health care providers and small physician practice owners.  Among the factors that may have resulted in the uptick in cases against individuals are the Yates Memo issued in late 2015, improved and increased reliance on sophisticated data analytics, and the aggressive focus on opioid addiction and its causes. Continue Reading Health Care Enforcement Review and 2018 Outlook: Criminal and Civil Enforcement Trends

The U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memo dated January 4, 2018 regarding federal marijuana enforcement policy, directing all U.S. Attorneys to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to follow well-established principles when pursuing prosecutions related to marijuana activities.  Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ memorandum rescinds multiple guidance documents issued during the Obama administration, such as the Cole Memo  dated August 29, 2013, and announces a” return to the rule of law.”  Continue Reading Sessions Memo Resets Federal Marijuana Enforcement Policy

Throughout 2017, the lower courts built upon the standard for determining materiality under the False Claims Act (FCA) established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016) (“Escobar”). In Escobar, decided in June 2016, the Court endorsed the “implied false certification” theory of liability under the FCA, premised on a “rigorous” and “demanding” element of “materiality.”  As expected, this decision triggered a spate of litigation over what “materiality” means, and how to apply this requirement.

By way of background, the Court held that the “implied false certification” theory has two elements:

  • “the claim does not merely request payment, but also makes specific representations about the goods or services provided,” and
  • the defendant’s “failure to disclose noncompliance with material statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements makes those representations misleading half-truths.”

The Court described the materiality standard as centered on “the likely or actual behavior” of the agency that made the payment decision, not whether the agency had the legal authority to deny payment, as argued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) prior to the Court’s decision. To be material, the Court reasoned, the misrepresentation must go to the essence of the bargain, and noncompliance cannot be “minor or insubstantial.”  The Court noted that materiality can be determined based on a number of factors – none of which are dispositive – and held that a court’s decision, though fact-specific, still could lead to dismissal on a motion to dismiss or at summary judgment. Those looking for additional background on the Escobar decision should see our Health Care Enforcement Defense AdvisoryContinue Reading Health Care Enforcement Year in Review and 2018 Outlook: The False Claims Act’s Materiality Standard as Established by Escobar Continues to Evolve