Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Taylor Chenery provided insight in a Bloomberg article on the effect that a Department of Justice (DOJ) Memorandum is having on healthcare fraud enforcement actions and corresponding defense strategies. The Brand Memo, named after then-Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, was issued by the DOJ in January 2018 and limits the use of guidance documents in civil enforcement actions and prevents DOJ attorneys from using “informal agency guidance as binding law.”
Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Brian Roark answered several questions about healthcare fraud enforcement trends in 2018 for the High Stakes blog. As a follow-up to the release of the firm’s Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Review 2017, Brian provided insights on the following questions:
- Despite deep partisan divides on virtually every other healthcare issue, bipartisan support for aggressive healthcare fraud enforcement remains constant. What factors explain that?
- We have heard a lot in the news about the Trump administration’s push to simplify the regulatory environment for business. Do you see evidence of that in healthcare?
Jeff Gibson co-authored an article for the American Bar Association (ABA) outlining some of the tools a company may use in response to a False Claims Act (FCA) investigation. Jeff co-authored the article with Greg Russo, managing director at Berkeley Research Group, for the ABA’s Health Law Section. As the authors point out, the government has been very successful in recent years in pursuing allegations against healthcare companies accused of submitting false claims under the FCA.
In an article for Nashville Medical News, Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Taylor Chenery examined two recent Department of Justice (DOJ) memoranda that limit the use of guidance documents in civil enforcement actions. These memos may signal a change in how the government will approach enforcement efforts involving allegations of healthcare fraud and provide insight into how providers may be able to contest such allegations.
The memos – the first released in November 2017 by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the second released in January 2018 by then-Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand – “relate to the government’s use of guidance documents — as opposed to codified statutes or regulations — to educate regulated parties and to enforce existing statutory or regulatory requirements.”
The FCA continues to be the federal government’s primary civil enforcement tool for investigating allegations that healthcare providers or government contractors defrauded the federal government. In the coming weeks, we continue to take a closer look at recent legal developments involving the FCA. This week, we examine judicial review of FCA settlements and recent cases considering this issue.
In U.S. ex rel. Michaels v. Agape Senior Cmty., Inc., the Fourth Circuit considered the scope of DOJ’s authority to review and ultimately veto a settlement reached by relators and the defendants. The panel had little difficulty affirming the district court’s determination that DOJ’s veto authority in this regard is unreviewable.