State Medicaid Agencies have historically engaged in an epic balancing act.  Federal law requires State Medicaid Agencies to ensure beneficiaries have access to medically necessary services.  Federal law also requires State Medicaid Agencies to safeguard their Medicaid Programs against fraud, waste or abuse in billing for Medicaid services.  Balancing those competing requirements has long proven challenging.

Indeed, that very challenge is why federal law also requires State Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs) be housed outside of the State Medicaid Agencies, and that the State Medicaid Agencies have no authority over which cases the individual MFCUs investigate or prosecute under applicable civil or criminal statutes.  Concerns over access to care should not factor into prosecution judgments in the face of allegations of Medicaid fraud.

No state is more emblematic of the challenges presented by that balancing act than Texas.  But Texas may also be a case study in why use of private Medicaid Management and Medicaid Managed Care companies is no panacea for those challenges.  Moreover, Texas may be a case study in the importance of private Medicaid Management and Medicaid Managed Care companies understanding the depth of those challenges and the need to fully assess what the company may be taking on, before contracting to provide Medicaid services in a particular state. Continue Reading Texas:  A Cautionary Tale for Medicaid Management and Managed Care Companies

Last week, Mintz Levin’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Group published a new Qui Tam Update, which analyzes 60 health care-related False Claims Act qui tam cases unsealed in December 2017 and January 2018 and the trends they reflect:

  • The government intervened in 14% of those unsealed cases (a figure that is consistent with the longer-term trends we have seen over the prior twelve months).
  • Of the 60 unsealed cases, only 28 were being litigated (at least initially). The remaining 32 cases were docketed as closed or dismissed.
  • The 60 unsealed cases were filed in 38 different courts. Jurisdictions with the most unsealed cases included:
    • The Central District of California (which includes Los Angeles) with six cases;
    • The Middle District of Florida (which includes Jacksonville, Orlando, and Tampa) with 4 cases; and
    • The District of Connecticut and Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans), each with 3 cases.
  • The most frequently targeted types of defendants included:
    • Pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and healthcare systems, with each accounting for 9 of the 60 unsealed cases.
    • Physicians and physician group practices, which were targeted in 7 cases.
    • Home health and hospice providers, which were the subject of 6 cases.
    • Outpatient clinics, which were defendants in 5 cases.
  • Former employees were again the most frequent relator type, accounting for 23 of the 60 unsealed cases. Expert witnesses brought 7 cases and current employees brought 2 cases.
  • Only one of the cases was unsealed within the 60-day period specified by statute. That case was under seal for 55 days.
  • The longest time a case was under seal was almost eight-and-a-half years. Average time under seal for this cohort was 700 days, though half of these cases were unsealed in 16 months or less, and 23 of these 60 cases were unsealed in less than a year.

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

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

On January 11, 2018, CMS released a Letter to Medicaid Directors outlining guidance that work requirements can be used as a basis for eligibility for certain adult Medicaid beneficiaries through 1115 waivers. Medicaid beneficiaries that can be subject to work requirements include non-elderly, non-pregnant adult Medicaid beneficiaries who are eligible for Medicaid on a basis other than disability. The guidance also outlines that exemptions/protections from work requirements must be made for individuals who are medically frail or have substance use disorders. It also details that states should outline how they would support beneficiaries with limited employment opportunities (economically depressed area, rural area, transportation limitations, etc.). The guidance suggests state could use good cause exemptions similar to those used in SNAP and TANF. Continue Reading CMS Guidance on Work Requirements for Medicaid Eligibility

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

The rising cost of drugs in the U.S. is frequently in the news. So it is not surprising that in its contract year 2019 Proposed Medicare Advantage and Part D Regulations (Proposed Rule), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) seeks to address Part D drug prices. CMS proposes making certain changes that might lower drug costs (for Plan Sponsors and beneficiaries) and requests information regarding avenues to potentially lower Medicare beneficiaries’ point-of-sale drug costs. The three provisions in the Proposed Rule that most directly relate to drug pricing address: (1) generic drug formulary placement, (2) cost-sharing for follow-on biological products, and (3) whether and how to reduce point-of-sale drug prices based on manufacturer rebates and pharmacy price concessions that a Plan Sponsor might receive months after the beneficiary receives the drugs. We will concentrate on the first two provision in this post. The third provision, which is a request for information, will be discussed in a later post.  Continue Reading Proposed Medicare Advantage and Part D Regulations for CY 2019 – CMS Takes Aim at Drug Prices

On November 8, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold a workshop entitled, “Understanding Competition in Prescription Drug Markets: Entry and Supply Chain Dynamics.” Acting FTC Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen and U.S. Food and Drug Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb will give the keynote addresses. Part of the goal of the workshop is to identify obstacles to competition and discuss policy steps that can increase the availability of generic drugs to consumers.

The Hatch-Waxman Act (the Act), which Congress passed over 30 years ago, provides a regulatory and judicial framework to expedite generic entry into U.S. prescription drug markets. For many drugs, the Act has helped reduce patent-related barriers to generic drug entry, which, in turn, has increased competition that has led to lower drug prices. In 2010, Congress created a similar framework for biosimilar drug development under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. Continue Reading Federal Trade Commission Announces Workshop on Competition in the Prescription Drug Market

Last week, Mintz Levin’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Group published a new Qui Tam Update, which analyzes 21 health care-related False Claims Act qui tam cases unsealed in May 2017, and the findings include:

  • long delays in unsealing remain the norm;
  • relators overwhelmingly consisted of current and former employees (and physicians); and
  • the most common alleged violation was billing fraud (which was claimed in two-thirds of the 21 unsealed cases).

Also of note in this Update:

  • The targeted entities in these 21 cases included outpatient medical and psychological providers, laboratory testing companies, inpatient hospitals, and home health care providers.
  • Of the 21 cases, the government intervened, in whole or in part, in seven cases and declined to intervene in 10.  (Intervention status could not be determined from the docket in four cases.)
  • The cases were filed in 17 different courts (including the Central District of California, the District of South Carolina, the Eastern District of Michigan, and the Northern District of California).

This Update provides in-depth analysis of three of the unsealed cases, which involve allegations regarding (1) “up coding” by a hospital that allegedly billed routine transport as emergency transport, which was reimbursed at a higher rate; (2) billing for medically unnecessary tests that purported to identify susceptibility to opioid addiction and engaging in a kickback scheme; and (3) processing prior authorization requests for MCOs using automated procedures to expedite processing and circumvent medical necessity determinations, resulting in submission of false claims.