Next week, the Massachusetts House will continue the budget process and debate over 1000 amendments that members filed to the House Ways and Means Committee’s proposed $40.3 billion FY2018 budget. The Committee’s budget includes some notable departures from Governor Baker’s proposed budget, including changes to budget items impacting the health care industry. In an Alert released earlier this week, my ML Strategies colleagues Julie Cox, Steven Baddour, Dan Connelly, Caitlin Beresin, Max Fathy and Haejin Hwang describe some of the variances in health care and public health spending proposals. Continue Reading Massachusetts Budget Process Continues with Impact on Health Care
As the healthcare industry moves towards value-based purchasing, pay-for-performance, and other payment reform models, industry leaders have identified federal fraud and abuse laws as a barrier to full implementation of such models. Last month, the Health Care Leadership Council released a White Paper entitled “Health System Transformation: Revisiting the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute and Physician Self-Referral (“Stark”) Law to Foster Integrated Care Delivery and Payment Models” (“HCL White Paper”), identifying current fraud and abuse laws as impeding transformation of the healthcare system. Pharmaceutical and device manufacturers have also taken advantage of the OIG’s Solicitation of New Safe Harbors and Special Fraud Alerts (“OIG Solicitation”) to advocate for more flexible fraud and abuse laws with respect to value-based arrangements. Continue Reading Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Healthcare Leaders cite Fraud and Abuse Laws as Obstacle to Value-Based Arrangements
Last month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah joined the AseraCare court and others in finding that a relator cannot successfully allege violations of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) based on a purported lack of medical necessity unless there is an objective standard articulated by Medicare. In fact, District Judge Jill Parrish cited the AseraCare case and many federal appellate decisions when granting dismissal – with prejudice – in United States ex rel. Polukoff v. St. Mark’s et al., No. 16-cv-00304 (D. Utah 2017). Continue Reading Another Court Agrees That A Difference Of Opinion On Medical Necessity Is Insufficient to Show Falsity Under the False Claims Act
Today, my colleagues Laurence Freedman, Samantha Kingsbury, and Karen Lovitch released the latest in our ongoing series reviewing health care enforcement activities in 2016 and their impacts looking forward to 2017. The client alert highlights major case law developments that influenced health care enforcement in 2016 and that will likely have major effects on the health care industry in the year ahead.
The client alert addresses the following issues raised by these important cases and what each might mean in 2017:
- Implied false certification theory and materiality requirement (Escobar)
- Anti-Kickback Statute discount exception and safe harbor (Organon; CCS Medical)
- Proof of falsity in False Claims Act medical necessity cases (AseraCare)
- Statistical sampling to prove liability in False Claims Act cases (Agape; Life Care Centers of America)
Please refer to our Health Care Enforcement Review and 2017 Outlook blog post series for additional insights on key government policies, regulations, and enforcement actions from 2016 and their expected impact on health care enforcement in the year ahead. We also encourage you to sign up for our annual webinar, Health Care Enforcement Review & 2017 Outlook, which will take place on Wednesday, January 25 at 1:00 p.m. ET. Registration and additional information are available here.
Last week, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a report analyzing CMS’ readiness to implement major parts of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). The report provides an inside look at the steps CMS is taking to implement MACRA’s Quality Payment Program (QPP), which is an ambitious transformation of the way in which the federal government reimbursements health care providers. The report highlights two key vulnerabilities for the MACRA transition, a process that will hopefully be smoother than the troubled roll out of HealthCare.gov.
Since congressional enactment and presidential signing of the Cures Act into law earlier this month, we have been blogging on discrete regulatory and clinical areas affected by its provisions (see here and here). One small, but by no means insignificant, change is the Cures Act’s explicit recognition that drug and biologic manufacturers should have the ability to promote their products to payors and health plans through well-developed “health care economic information.” Continue Reading Cures Act Affirms Drug Companies’ Ability to Discuss Certain Information with Payors
On Friday, Robert Kidwell and Bruce Sokler, members of the Firm’s Antitrust and Federal Regulatory practice group, presented a webinar on the Third Circuit’s hotly anticipated decision on the FTC’s appeal of the District Court’s denial of its request for a preliminary injunction on the merger of Penn State Hershey Medical Center and Pinnacle Health System.
This case became a topic of interest after the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction in May 2016. In reaching its decision, the District Court defined the “relevant geographic market” in a manner that, if upheld on appeal, would have essentially gutted the FTC’s approach to hospital merger enforcement. Ultimately, the Third Circuit found that the District Court committed legal error in failing to properly formulate and apply the “hypothetical monopolist test” and issued an opinion that Rob and Bruce characterized as a “big win” for the FTC.
Rob and Bruce also expect this decision to be helpful to the FTC in its ongoing challenge to the Advocate/North Shore merger in Chicago (check out our previous blog post on this topic by clicking here). Stay tuned for further updates!
As we’ve previously reported, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) has recently proposed a number of amended regulations in connection with the regulatory review and overhaul mandated by Governor Baker’s Executive Order 562. Senior DPH staff presented these proposed regulations at a Public Health Council Meeting on September 14 (the “PHC Meeting”). Today we are looking at proposed regulations related to Dialysis Units. For our prior analysis of the proposed regulations on hospital licensing, please see here. Continue Reading Massachusetts Dialysis Unit Licensing Proposed Regulations – Key Take-Aways
In a blog post last week, CMS acting administrator Andy Slavitt said that physicians will have the ability to choose among several options to report data to Medicare under the new physician payment system ushered in by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA).
As we previously discussed, starting in 2019, physicians will be reimbursed on one of two tracks. The first track will continue to provide reimbursement on a fee-for-service basis, but with an upward or downward adjustment based on the physician’s performance under the new Merit-Based Incentive Payment Systems (MIPS). The MIPS system will replace the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), the Meaningful Use Program, and the Value-based Modifier Program. On the other track, physicians participating in advanced alternative payment models (APMs), including certain accountable care organizations (ACOs), will receive their fee-for-service reimbursement without being subject to MIPS. Continue Reading CMS Proposes Flexible Reporting Under MACRA
A unanimous Supreme Court issued its long-awaited and closely watched decision today on the scope of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), and the Court affirmed the FCA’s long reach. Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar et al., No 15-7. The decision has momentous implications for health care providers and suppliers, and other entities, who seek or cause others to seek Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement.
This post summarizes today’s decision. Mintz Levin’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Group will be providing additional insight and commentary on the decision in the coming days.