Although this blog focuses mainly on the federal False Claims Act (FCA), other antifraud statutes feature in the qui tam relator and government enforcement toolkit. Key among them: the California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA).

The IFPA is a state antifraud statute that, while modeled on the FCA, stands on its own because it targets fraud on commercial insurance. The IFPA has become a primary vehicle in California for addressing alleged healthcare fraud. Over the last decade, qui tam IFPA actions have resulted in tens of millions of dollars in settlements in healthcare fraud matters. Going forward, qui tam relators and the State of California will continue to use the IFPA to pursue significant recoveries for alleged healthcare fraud. This is a statute every provider doing business in California needs to know about. The main features of the IFPA are discussed below.

Conduct Covered by IFPA

When it was enacted in 1993, the IFPA focused only on workers’ compensation fraud. Recognizing the need to combat other types of insurance fraud, California expanded the statute’s reach over time. Codified at Cal. Ins. Code § 1871, et seq., the IFPA has evolved to cover many types of insurance fraud, including health insurance fraud.

Continue Reading The California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act: What to Know About California’s Powerful Commercial Health Insurance Fraud Statute

The 7th Annual Healthcare Fraud Conference was hosted by Bass, Berry & Sims and the Tennessee Hospital Association. Because we are unable to provide an in-person forum due to ongoing concerns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, we once again hosted the conference virtually.

This year’s complimentary CLE program, provides the same caliber of practical advice, insight into significant fraud and abuse issues facing healthcare professionals, and thoughtful discussion from industry panelists for which this conference is known.

Topics include:

  • Healthcare Fraud Year in Review
  • Hot Topics in Healthcare Fraud: Today and Tomorrow
  • The Future of the False Claims Act
  • Provider Relief Fund Audits and Investigations
  • Navigating Corporate Integrity Agreements and Administrative Remedies
  • Litigating Healthcare Fraud Enforcement Cases
  • Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute Enforcement Developments
  • FCA Self-Disclosure Considerations

This year’s conference was held on Wednesday, December 1 and Thursday, December 2. To watch the conference on-demand, please click here.

Click here to view the agenda and presenters.

Continue Reading [Virtual Event] 7th Annual Healthcare Fraud Conference

Pfizer lost a legal battle focused on the company’s financial assistance program against the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The agency denied the pharmaceutical company’s request to vacate an OIG advisory opinion that effectively precludes the manufacturer

We released our Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Annual Review earlier this month. To serve as a companion to the Review, we’re hosting a complimentary webinar on Thursday, February 18, 2021 from 8:00-10:00 a.m. PT / 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. CT / 11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. ET. that will take a deeper dive into key focus areas covered

Bass, Berry & Sims is pleased to announce the release of the newest edition of its Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Annual Review examining important healthcare fraud developments in 2020. Compiled by the firm’s Healthcare Fraud Task Force, the Review provides an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of the past year’s court decisions involving the False

On June 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a qui tam False Claims Act (FCA) suit alleging certain physician compensation arrangements at Trinity Health violated the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and Stark Law.

The relator, a former surgeon at one of Trinity’s hospitals, alleged the following:

  1. Trinity paid five of its highest-earning physicians above fair market value by compensating them in excess of 90th percentile compensation for their specialties at levels not justified by their personal productivity.
  2. The high compensation generated practice losses for Trinity absent taking into account the physicians’ downstream referrals to the health system.
  3. As a result of the physicians’ compensation methodology, they performed unnecessary surgeries to inflate their compensation.
  4. Trinity opted not to renew the relator’s contract because he complained about these allegedly-unnecessary surgeries.


Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Kickback Case

This is the second post of a two-part discussion of recent developments related to the materiality standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Universal Health Services v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar.  Read our previous post, which covered appellate court decisions and key decisions related to government knowledge and payment.

Courts Take Differing Approaches to the Significance of Government Intervention Decisions

In assessing the False Claims Act’s (FCA) materiality element, courts have increasingly taken divergent approaches to analyze the significance of the government’s decision about whether to intervene in a qui tam action.

In several 2019 decisions, district courts held that the government’s decision to intervene in a qui tam action was relevant – even if not dispositive – to the materiality analysis under Escobar.  In U.S. ex rel. Longo v. Wheeling Hospital, Inc., for instance, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia found that the government’s decision to intervene in the very qui tam action before it “strongly militate[d] in favor of materiality.”  And in U.S. ex rel. Arnstein v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York explained that the government’s decision to intervene in “a factually similar case” in the same district “provide[d] strong evidence that AKS [Anti-Kickback Statute] violations were material to the Government’s payment decisions,” even though the government had not intervened in the case before the court.

Continue Reading Escobar’s “Rigorous” Materiality Standard: Recent Developments – Part Two

This is the first post of a two-part discussion of recent developments related to the materiality standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar.  Our second post covers government intervention decisions, the “essence of the bargain” test, and the materiality of Anti-Kickback Statute violations.

The Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar continues to play a significant role in FCA litigation, particularly with respect to courts’ analyses of the FCA’s materiality element.  In Escobar, the Supreme Court described the materiality element as “rigorous” and “demanding” and set forth a number of non-exclusive considerations to guide the materiality inquiry, which primarily focus on the government’s actual conduct and its payment (or non-payment) of purportedly false claims.  In 2019, courts continued to grapple with specific applications of Escobar’s directives, with some courts appearing to apply its materiality guidance less “rigorously” than others.

Some Appellate Courts Appear to Apply Escobar Less Rigorously Than Others

As we have previously discussed, the seemingly irreconcilable decisions issued by the nation’s circuit courts about how Escobar’s non-exclusive factors should apply in particular cases led parties in at least three such cases to seek further clarity from the Supreme Court.  But last year the Supreme Court denied review in each of those three cases, perhaps signaling that – at least for now – it is content to allow the various issues raised in Escobar to continue to percolate in the lower courts.

Continue Reading Escobar’s “Rigorous” Materiality Standard: Recent Developments – Part One

Congress amended the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) in 2010 to confirm that a claim “resulting from” an AKS violation constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA.  42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(g).  However, Congress did not define the phrase “resulting from.”  That question is immaterial in a criminal AKS case because the offer or receipt of the payment completes the crime.  But in order to prevail in a civil FCA case, a relator or the government must prove the submission of a false claim to a federal healthcare program.  In recent civil FCA cases, courts have struggled to articulate the precise link that is required in order to establish that a claim “result[s] from” an illegal kickback, often relying on traditional causal concepts to help articulate the required link.  This developing area of the law is one to watch as courts continue to grapple with the interplay between the link required by the plain language of the AKS and the body of case law related to FCA causation.

U.S. ex rel. Greenfield v. Medco Health Sys., Inc.

In U.S. ex rel. Greenfield v. Medco Health Sys., Inc., the relator alleged that the defendants illegally donated to certain charities in order to receive patient referrals and then allegedly falsely certified compliance with the AKS when seeking reimbursement.  The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment for the defendants, reasoning that the relator had not shown a causal link between the defendants’ donations and any claims for payment.  Although discovery revealed that the defendants submitted claims for 24 federally insured patients during the relevant time period, the district court concluded that this evidence alone did not provide “the link between defendants’ 24 federally insured customers and defendants’ donations to [the charities].”  Instead, it explained that the relator was required to show that the federally insured patients were referred to the defendants as a result of the defendants’ donations to the charities.  “Absent some evidence … that those patients chose Accredo because of its donations,” the relator could not carry his burden on his claim.

Continue Reading Courts Grapple with Causation Requirement in FCA Cases Based on Violations of Anti-Kickback Statute

Bass, Berry & Sims is pleased to announce the release of the 2019 edition of its Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Annual Review. Compiled by the firm’s Healthcare Fraud Task Force​​​​​​​, the Review is an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of enforcement settlements, court decisions, and recent developments affecting the healthcare industry.

The Review details