{"id":4581,"date":"2011-11-16T01:29:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-16T01:29:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.healthlawpolicymatters.com\/?p=4581"},"modified":"2021-11-03T01:30:16","modified_gmt":"2021-11-03T01:30:16","slug":"oig-approves-arrangement-based-on-new-exception-to-beneficiary-inducement-prohibition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.healthlawpolicymatters.com\/2011\/11\/16\/oig-approves-arrangement-based-on-new-exception-to-beneficiary-inducement-prohibition\/","title":{"rendered":"OIG Approves Arrangement Based on New Exception to Beneficiary Inducement Prohibition"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Written by Karen Lovitch and Stephanie Willis<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\u00a0OIG Advisory Opinion 11-16<\/a>, the OIG\u00a0found that a Domiciliary Services Program (the \u201cProgram\u201d) offered by a\u00a0non-profit research hospital (the \u201cRequestor\u201d) is protected from enforcement under the\u00a0Anti-Kickback Statute\u00a0<\/a>and the prohibition on beneficiary inducement found in\u00a0the\u00a0civil monetary penalties law<\/a>\u00a0(the \u201cCMP law\u201d).\u00a0\u00a0 Through the\u00a0Program, the Requestor (described by the OIG as an \u201cinternationally known, not-for-profit institution\u201d) offers families of\u00a0children\u00a0receiving\u00a0highly specialized treatment free transportation, lodging, meals, and other services aimed at maintaining quality of life (e.g., developmental items such as strollers,\u00a0handling of patient\u00a0mail, and special occasion parties)\u00a0during the patient\u2019s stay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the Program would implicate both the Anti-Kickback Statute and the beneficiary inducement prohibition, the OIG concluded that eight factors sufficiently protected the Requestor from enforcement.  Among other things, the OIG noted that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n