Laboratory tests |

One Door for Criminal Health Care Fraud Disclosures: DOJ’s Fraud Division and HHS-OIG Consolidate Self-Disclosure—and Close the SDP to Criminal Conduct

November 11, 2026

Health care providers, suppliers, manufacturers, Medicare Advantage organizations, and other participants in Federal health care programs that uncover potentially criminal billing, kickback, or excluded-person conduct inside their own operations now face a materially different—and less forgiving—self-disclosure roadmap.

On October 15, 2026, the Justice Department’s National Fraud Enforcement Division (“Fraud Division”) and the HHS Office of Inspector General (“HHS-OIG”) issued a joint Policy on Coordination of Voluntary Self-Disclosure in Health Care Fraud Matters (the Policy), and HHS-OIG simultaneously updated its Health Care Fraud Self-Disclosure Protocol (“SDP”). See also the DOJ press release (Oct. 15, 2026).

The government touts the consolidation as offering simplification: a single qualifying voluntary self-disclosure to the Fraud Division’s Health Care Fraud Section now earns the benefits of both DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) and the HHS-OIG SDP, with no duplicate submission through the OIG portal. The less-advertised—but arguably more consequential—change runs the other way. HHS-OIG has expressly closed the SDP to disclosure of Federal crimes, and a disclosure made only to HHS-OIG generally will not qualify as a voluntary self-disclosure to DOJ or support a CEP declination. For organizations that historically treated the SDP as the default first call, the choice of which door to knock on first now carries real criminal-exposure consequences.

What the Joint Policy Does

The Policy establishes the following core rules:

One disclosure, two sets of benefits. A company that makes a voluntary self-disclosure to the Health Care Fraud Section “within the meaning of the CEP,” relating to conduct involving a Federal health care program as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(f), receives the benefits of the HHS-OIG SDP. Only one disclosure is required to obtain both CEP and SDP benefits. (Policy § I, ¶ 1; § III.A).
DOJ forwards the disclosure to OIG. The Health Care Fraud Section will promptly provide HHS-OIG a copy of the disclosure upon receipt. (Policy § III.B).
OIG-only disclosure generally does not count with DOJ. Consistent with footnote 5 of the CEP, a disclosure made only to HHS-OIG under the SDP generally does not qualify as a voluntary self-disclosure to the Fraud Division and generally will not satisfy the criteria for a Part I CEP declination. Such a disclosure may still be considered as part of a company’s cooperation and remediation credit. (Policy § I, ¶ 2; § III.C).
Good-faith disclosure to another DOJ component still qualifies. Quoting the CEP, the Policy confirms that good-faith disclosure to one DOJ component, where the matter is later brought to another appropriate component, also qualifies. (Policy n.3).
Effective date. The Policy applies to voluntary self-disclosures of potential criminal violations affecting one or more Federal health care programs made to the Fraud Division on or after October 15, 2026. (Policy § III.A).
Submission channel. DOJ directs self-disclosures to corporate.enforcement@usdoj.gov. (DOJ press release).

Important Limits Buried in the Footnotes

Several qualifications in the Policy should temper any expectation that a DOJ disclosure resolves everything:

Mandatory exclusion is not covered. The SDP benefits conferred through a DOJ disclosure do not include resolution of mandatory exclusion under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a). (Policy n.4). Organizations whose conduct could result in a conviction triggering mandatory exclusion must plan for that exposure separately.
Declination remains discretionary. Fraud Division prosecutors retain discretion to recommend a declination after weighing the severity of the circumstances against the company’s self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation. (Policy n.5).
No enforceable rights. The Policy expressly disclaims creating any right or benefit enforceable at law or in equity. (Policy n.1).
The CEP’s definition controls. A disclosure qualifies only if it is made to the Fraud Division (or another qualifying DOJ component) and satisfies every element of the CEP’s definition of voluntary self-disclosure. (Policy § II.A; CEP).

What Changed in the Updated HHS-OIG SDP

HHS-OIG’s October 15, 2026 SDP update implements the Policy and makes several operational changes providers should note:

Federal crimes are now expressly ineligible. The SDP adds a fifth category of ineligible conduct: it is not available for disclosure of Federal crimes, which should be disclosed to DOJ. Any criminal disclosure that does come through the SDP will be referred to DOJ for resolution. (SDP §§ 2.C, 6).
The 90-day clock now runs from submission. Disclosing parties expected to complete their internal investigation and damages calculation now have 90 days from the date of the initial submission—not from acceptance into the SDP, as before. (SDP §§ 1.B, 3.A). This effectively front-loads the investigation and damages work before filing.
Benefits for qualifying civil/administrative matters remain. These include a presumption against requiring integrity agreement obligations in exchange for a release of permissive exclusion, a general minimum multiplier of 1.5 times single damages, and suspension of the 60-day overpayment report-and-return obligation under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7k(d) upon OIG’s acknowledgment of a timely submission (see 42 C.F.R. § 401.305(b)(2)(i)). (SDP § 1.B).
Minimum settlements are unchanged. OIG continues to require a $100,000 minimum settlement for kickback-related submissions and $20,000 for all others. (SDP § 8).
Physician self-referral-only conduct still goes to CMS. Arrangements implicating only the physician self-referral law, without accompanying Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) exposure, remain outside the SDP and belong in CMS’s Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol. (SDP §§ 2.C, 7).

The Parallel Civil Track: The DOJ–HHS FCA Self-Disclosure Pilot Program

The Policy does not stand alone. DOJ’s Civil Division and HHS (the Office of the General Counsel, OIG, and CMS) have also launched a Healthcare Self-Disclosure Pilot Program (FCA SDPP), announced October 22, 2026, for potential False Claims Act violations previously unknown to the government (HHS press release (Oct. 22, 2026)). Key features include a coordinated civil release with no factual admissions; a repayment of 1.25–1.6 times a “Base Self-Disclosure Repayment”; no Corporate Integrity Agreement as part of any resolution of OIG’s permissive exclusion authorities; and CMS’s agreement not to impose civil monetary penalties or seek revocation in pilot resolutions. Submissions must be made to FCA-SDPP@usdoj.gov by 11:59 p.m. on April 22, 2027; late or partial submissions will not be reviewed. (FCA SDPP §§ II–III).

The FCA SDPP dovetails with the criminal Policy: it is limited to potentially civil conduct, routes potentially criminal conduct to the Fraud Division, and provides that a company that has made a qualifying criminal disclosure to the Fraud Division need not make a duplicative FCA SDPP submission, with supplementation requested only as needed if the company also seeks a civil FCA release. (FCA SDPP n.1).

Why the Timing Matters: A Rapidly Escalating Enforcement Environment

The Policy is one piece of a deliberate build-out. DOJ created the Fraud Division on April 7, 2026 (DOJ press release). On October 1, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald issued Directive 26-12: Corporate Enforcement in the Fight Against Fraud. Then, on October 20, 2026, DOJ launched the Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program (WHIP), which pays tipsters $10,000 to $30,000 upon the filing of criminal charges—rather than after final resolution—for information relating to Federal health care offenses and fraud on specified Federal programs. For health care, WHIP prioritizes hospice, home health care, day care, and special services fraud. (WHIP press release; WHIP terms).

The practical message is unmistakable: employees, contractors, and business partners now have a faster financial incentive to go directly to DOJ, while the window in which an organization can still claim a voluntary disclosure is shrinking. Delay spent debating where to disclose—or defaulting to an OIG-only filing for conduct that may be criminal—can forfeit declination eligibility altogether.

Analysis: The Hard Part Is the Triage

The Policy simplifies where to file once an organization concludes conduct may be criminal. It does not simplify the threshold judgment itself. The same arrangement—an illegal remuneration arrangement, billing for medically unnecessary services, or employment of an excluded person—can support criminal, civil FCA, and administrative CMP theories simultaneously, and the government’s own documents describe these as overlapping. Organizations should expect the following pressure points:

Criminal versus civil characterization. The AKS is a criminal statute that also triggers CMP and FCA liability. An organization that characterizes knowing kickback conduct as purely civil and files only with OIG risks losing CEP credit if DOJ later views the conduct as criminal.
Required admissions. The SDP requires disclosing parties to acknowledge a potential violation and identify the specific laws implicated; equivocal statements can lead to removal. (SDP § 2.B). Counsel must coordinate these acknowledgments with criminal exposure analysis before anything is filed with any agency.
Individuals are not protected by the entity’s disclosure. The Policy and CEP address corporate resolutions. Executives, physicians, and employees involved in the conduct may have separate and divergent interests, which raises Upjohn-warning, separate-counsel, and indemnification/advancement questions.
Employment-law crosscurrents. Internal reporters may simultaneously be WHIP tipsters or potential qui tam relators. Discipline or termination decisions involving anyone connected to the reported conduct must be reviewed for retaliation exposure, including under the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).
The 60-day overpayment suspension may not travel with a DOJ-first disclosure. CMS’s regulation suspends the Medicare Part A/B report-and-return deadline only when (i) OIG acknowledges receipt of an SDP submission, (ii) CMS acknowledges receipt of a Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol submission, (iii) the provider requests an extended repayment schedule, or (iv) the provider is conducting a timely, good-faith investigation of related overpayments—a suspension that ends no later than 180 days after the initial overpayment was identified. (42 C.F.R. § 401.305(b)(2)–(3)). A disclosure to DOJ is not among the listed triggers. Neither the Policy nor the updated SDP addresses how the suspension applies when the Health Care Fraud Section forwards a disclosure to OIG and no SDP submission is made; the SDP continues to describe the suspension as arising when OIG acknowledges receipt of an SDP submission. (SDP § 1.B). When CMS adopted the regulation, it reportedly declined commenters’ requests to extend the suspension to disclosures made to DOJ or Medicaid Fraud Control Units. (81 Fed. Reg. 7654 (Feb. 12, 2016)). [verify pin cite for the DOJ/MFCU comment response in the 2016 preamble] The regulation also covers only Medicare Parts A and B; the statutory 60-day obligation for Medicaid overpayments under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7k(d) has no corresponding regulatory suspension. Until DOJ, OIG, or CMS speaks to the question, a DOJ-first discloser should not assume the SDP’s overpayment suspension attaches automatically.
Precaution: As of November 11, 2026, we found no DOJ, HHS-OIG, or CMS guidance on whether the 60-day overpayment suspension applies when a disclosure goes to DOJ first. As written, the regulation does not cover that route. (42 C.F.R. § 401.305(b)(2)). Organizations disclosing to the Fraud Division should not assume the suspension applies and should plan for the 60-day report-and-return obligation accordingly.

Action Items by Stakeholders

Boards and senior leadership should:

Obtain training or education about Federal Sentencing Guidelines organizational and person exposure for criminal actions and best practices for preventing and mitigating these risks.
Confirm that the organization’s disclosure-decision framework assigns clear authority and timelines for deciding whether, when, and where to disclose, and that it reflects the DOJ-first rule for potentially criminal conduct.
Require periodic reporting on hotline volume, investigation aging, and disclosure decisions, recognizing that WHIP compresses the time available to act voluntarily.

Compliance Officers should:

Update self-disclosure policies, investigation protocols, and escalation matrices that currently direct federal program issues to the OIG SDP by default.
Build a documented triage step that screens every substantiated matter for potential criminal exposure before choosing among the Fraud Division, the OIG SDP, the CMS SRDP, the FCA SDPP, or a routine contractor refund.
Refresh exclusion screening (including full-workforce LEIE screening, which the SDP requires before disclosing an excluded-person matter) and AKS arrangement reviews, particularly in hospice, home health, and day care service lines that WHIP prioritizes. (SDP § 3.C).

General Counsel should work with qualified outside counsel to:

Tighten compliance controls and documentation.
Structure internal investigations under privilege from the outset, with criminal-exposure assessment by counsel experienced in DOJ health care fraud matters.
Calendar the FCA SDPP’s April 22, 2027 deadline for potentially civil-only matters, and evaluate whether any pending matters should be routed through the Fraud Division to capture both CEP and SDP benefits.
Assess mandatory-exclusion risk separately, as the Policy does not resolve it.
For DOJ-first disclosures involving quantified Medicare or Medicaid overpayments, request written confirmation from the Health Care Fraud Section and HHS-OIG at the time of disclosure as to whether OIG will treat the forwarded disclosure as an acknowledged SDP submission for purposes of 42 C.F.R. § 401.305(b)(2)(i). Absent confirmation, track the 180-day investigation suspension and evaluate, in coordination with the government, whether to return quantified overpayments through the MAC or an extended repayment schedule; OIG credits pre-resolution refunds toward settlement but is not bound by amounts repaid outside the SDP. (SDP § 10).

Human Resources should work with employment counsel experienced with health care and other Federal Sentencing Guidelines risk management to:

Strengthen training and compliance oversight and enforcement.
Tighten internal reporting channels and non-retaliation messaging so employees see internal reporting as credible and safe.
Route any adverse employment action involving a reporter, witness, or implicated employee through legal review before implementation, and ensure investigation interviews include appropriate Upjohn warnings.
Review separation, confidentiality, and release templates to confirm they do not purport to restrict reporting to government agencies.

Billing, Revenue Cycle, and Finance leaders should:

Preserve claims, payment, and arrangement data needed to support the SDP’s damages methodologies (including statistically valid sampling of at least 100 items) or the FCA SDPP’s Base Self-Disclosure Repayment. (SDP § 3.B; FCA SDPP § II).
Coordinate any overpayment refunds with counsel before processing, since repayments outside the SDP do not bind OIG and may affect the disclosure strategy. (SDP § 10).

Bottom Line

For potentially criminal health care conduct, the default first call is now DOJ’s Fraud Division, not HHS-OIG. The Policy reduces duplication for organizations that get the triage right, but it raises the cost of getting it wrong. Health care organizations should update their disclosure frameworks now, before a hotline report or a WHIP tip forces the decision on a compressed timeline.

For Help or More Information

The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has decades of experience advising and assisting health industry clients to design, audit, and defend their organizations and practices including conducting audits and investigations, designing and updating compliance and risk management programs, responding to government investigations, conducting transaction, governance, and other due diligence, and assisting with other legal and operational compliance and risk management and legislative and regulatory affairs. She is available to assist your organization in assessing the impact of these developments and navigating the compliance and strategic steps that follow. For more information about these or other health care, managed care and other health benefits, or other health industry laws or concerns, contact Ms. Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Peer recognized as “Top Rated Lawyer” and “LEGAL LEADER™ “Top Rated Lawyer” and “Best Lawyer” for her work in Health Care Law, Labor and Employment Law; ERISA & Employee Benefits,” and “Business and Commercial Law,” Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is an A Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) attorneys board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for her more than 35 years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications including leading edge work on PBM, pharmacy and pharmaceutical and other health care, managed care, insurance, and insured and self-insured contracting, design, administration and regulation..

Author of numerous highly regarded works on health care fraud and other compliance, risk management and operations, Chair of the Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section Medicine and Law Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee and the former Group Chair and Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with hospitals, health care systems, long term care, rehabilitation, home health, hospice, clinics, and other health care organizations; physician and other provider organizations and practitioners; accreditation, medical staff, peer review, and quality committees and organizations; billing, audit, practice management, utilization management, EMR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors and services organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; DME; health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations; consultants; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies on billing and reimbursement, government investigations and enforcement, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy, and other legal and operational concerns.

Author of a multitude of highly regarded publications and presentations, Ms. Stamer is widely recognized for her thought leadership on these and other health care, managed care and other health plan,and other health industry matters. In addition, Ms. Stamer contributes her time and leadership to numerous policy, professional, civil and other organizations including service as the, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often rapidly evolves, subsequent developments that could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2026 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Conditions of Participation, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, DEA, Durable Medical Equipment, Employer, Employment law, FDA, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Government contractor, Grant recipients, Grants, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Plans, healthcare, Heath Care Exchange, HHS, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, laboratory testing, Laboratory tests, Life Sciences, long-term care, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medicaid Advantage, medical devices, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Money Laundering, nursing home, OIG, Pharmaceudical, pharmaceutical, Pharmacy, Prescription Drugs, Psychiatric, Reimbursement, retaliation, Stark, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care, Whistleblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

FDA & CMS Partnering To Promote Accurate and Reliable Diagnostic Tests

January 18, 2024

The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) are joining forces to heighten scrutiny of diagnostic testing. As part of these efforts, the agencies are working together to expand FDA oversight of testing facilities to increase FDA regulation and oversight of tests run within a single laboratory, known as laboratory, developed tests or LDTs. The agencies claim this will promote more reliable and accurate diagnostic tests.

LDTs Defined

LDTs are in vitro diagnostic products (IVDs) that are intended for clinical use and are designed, manufactured, and used within a single clinical laboratory which meets certain laboratory requirements. Specifically, such laboratory must be certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) and meet the regulatory requirements under CLIA to perform high complexity testing.

IVDs are intended for use in the collection, preparation and examination of specimens taken from the human body, such as blood, saliva, or tissue. LDTs, like other IVDs, can be used to measure or detect a wide variety of substances, analytes, or markers in the human body, such as proteins, glucose, cholesterol, or DNA, to provide information about a patient’s health, including to diagnose, monitor, or determine treatment for diseases and conditions.

FDA Steps Up LDT Oversight

While LDTs generally are covered by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) and required to meet the regulatory requirements under CLIA to perform high complexity testing, the FDA since the 1970s has not enforced applicable requirements with respect to most LDTs.

The FDA now is making clear LDTs are covered by the CLiA and the FDA now will require LDT CLIA compliance in response to their increasing use and the greater risks associated with most modern LDTs compared to those associated with LDTs used decades ago.

In furtherance of this effort, on September 29, 2023, the FDA announced a proposed rule aimed at helping to ensure the safety and effectiveness of these tests. The proposed rule seeks to amend the FDA’s regulations to make explicit that IVDs are devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including when the manufacturer of the IVD is a laboratory. Along with this amendment, the FDA is proposing a policy under which the FDA intends to provide greater oversight of LDTs through a phaseout of its general enforcement discretion approach for most LDTs.

Today, the FDA announced it is moving forward to phase out its CLIA non enforcement policy for LDTs to provide increased FDA oversight of LDTs on January 18, 2024. See Laboratory Developed Tests (January 18, 2024).

Along with this announcement, the FDA and CNS also released the following joint statement released on January 18, 2024, attributed to Jeff Shuren, M.D., J.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and Dora Hughes, M.D., M.P.H., acting chief medical officer and acting director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)

Physicians heavily rely on laboratory tests to make critical decisions about their patients’ care—roughly 70% of healthcare decisions depend on laboratory test results according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). For example, results from laboratory tests can be the sole determinant of whether a patient with cancer gets a particular therapy, potentially risking the patient’s life with an inaccurate test result. Because of the important role of laboratory tests in healthcare decisions, it is essential to ensure these tests work.

While the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) actively oversees tests made outside laboratories by test manufacturers, tests m and run within a single laboratory, known as laboratory, developed tests or LDTs, are often used without such oversight. The FDA’s approach was developed half a century ago when tests made and used in single labs were generally simple, often made to address local individual needs, and mostly manufactured in small volumes. Therefore, the FDA, as a policy approach, generally did not enforce requirements for LDTs. However, since then, LDTs have evolved. Due to the increased risk to patients, it is time to reconsider this approach.

In recent decades, the FDA has identified concerns with a number of LDTs. For example, the FDA is aware of tests offered as LDTs that could have led to patients being over- or under-treated for heart disease; patients with cancer being exposed to inappropriate therapies or not getting effective therapies; and incorrect diagnoses of rare diseases, autism and Alzheimer’s Disease.^1,2Other evidence, including published literature^3,4,5,6,7,8 and the FDA’s experience with tests to diagnose COVID-19,⁹ suggests that the situation is getting worse. Therefore, in October of this year, the FDA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to help ensure the safety and effectiveness of LDTs by phasing out the FDA’s current approach to LDTs. If finalized, LDTs would generally fall under the same enforcement approach as other tests. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) supports the FDA’s proposal.

Both CMS and the FDA believe that patients and their doctors need to know that LDTs are valid. The FDA and CMS both provide oversight to help assure the accuracy of test results, however, they have different roles. CMS regulates laboratories that perform testing on individuals in the U.S. through the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) by establishing quality standards for all laboratory testing to help ensure the accuracy, reliability and timeliness of patient test results. In 2013, CMS published a fact sheet on LDTs, outlining each agency’s authority and the complementary roles of the two regulatory schemes. That said, a decade later, in connection with the FDA’s notice of proposed rulemaking, we are – together – reiterating that CMS’s CLIA program is separate in scope and purpose from FDA oversight.

Some have suggested that concerns with LDTs should be addressed through expansion of CLIA. This is not the answer. As was stated in our 2015 testimony, CMS does not have the expertise to assure that tests work; the FDA does. Moreover, establishing a duplicative system for the oversight of tests by expanding CLIA would create more government bureaucracy and inconsistencies. That makes no sense.

The FDA and CMS have long stood together in mutual support of FDA oversight of the analytical and clinical validity of LDTs. LDTs play an important role in healthcare, but when they perform poorly or are not supported by science, they put patients at risk. The current approach has enabled some tests to enter the market with unfounded claims of innovation. These claims can mislead the public, undermine legitimate competition and disincentivize responsible, science-based innovation. Applying the same oversight approach to laboratories and non-laboratories that manufacture tests would better assure the safety and effectiveness of LDTs and would remove a disincentive for non-laboratory manufacturers to develop novel tests that can be available to and used by many laboratories for many patients.

We are now emerging from a global pandemic that has underscored the importance of accurate and reliable tests. Patients and providers need to have confidence that laboratory tests work. We believe the complementary FDA and CMS frameworks are both critical to assuring patients can rely on the clinical accuracy of their test results. “
See: Americans Deserve Accurate and Reliable Diagnostic Tests, Wherever They Are Made (January 18, 2024).

Affected LDT facilities and other interested parties should follow these efforts closely for relevant developments and opportunities for comment and other input. Additionally, LDTs should move quickly to come into compliance with all applicable CLIA requirements.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on heath benefit and other healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Author of a multitude of highly regarded publications on HIPAA and other medical record and data privacy and scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules make it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication.

¹ See pages 68010- 68012 of FDA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

² See “Memorandum to File – Examples of IVDs Offered as LDTs that Raise Public Health Concerns RE: Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed Tests”

³ Pfeifer, J.D., R. Loberg, C. Lofton-Day, et al., “Reference Samples to Compare Next-Generation Sequencing Test Performance for Oncology Therapeutics and Diagnostics,” American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 157(4):628-638, 2022 External Link Disclaimer.

⁴Quy, P.N., K. Fukuyama, M. Kanai, et al., “Inter-Assay Variability of Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Gene Panels,” BMC Medical Genomics, 15: 86, 2022 External Link Disclaimer.

⁵ Vega, D.M., L.M. Yee, L.M. McShane, et al., “Aligning Tumor Mutational Burden (TMB) Quantification Across Diagnostic Platforms: Phase II of the Friends of Cancer Research TMB Harmonization Project,” Annals of Oncology, 32(12):1626-1636, 2021 External Link Disclaimer.

⁶ Offit, K., C.M. Sharkey, D. Green, et al., “Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests in Preventive Oncology: Emerging Needs and Opportunities,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, 41(1): 11-21, 2023 External Link Disclaimer.

⁷Coffey, D., “Blood Test Positive for Cancer, but Is There Really a Tumor?” Medscape, February 17, 2023 External Link Disclaimer.

⁸ Manrai, A.K., B.H. Funke, H.L. Rehm, et al., “Genetic Misdiagnoses and the Potential for Health Disparities,” New England Journal of Medicine, 375(7):655-665, 2016 External Link Disclaimer.

⁹ See “Memorandum from Elizabeth Hillebrenner to FDA CDRH”

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Centers For Disease Control, CLIA, diagnostic testing, drug treatment, FDA, Health Care, laboratory testing, Laboratory tests, Life Sciences, Medicaid, Medicare | Tagged: CLIA, Compliance, Credentialing, Doctor, FDA, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Provider, health care quality, Health Plans, healthcare, Hospital, Hospitals, lab tests, LDTs, licensure, Medical Licensure, Pandemic, Pharmaceudical, pharmacist, pharmacy, Physicians, public health | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Chiropractor, Modern Vascular Office-Based Labs and Modern Vascular Corporate Entities Face False Claims Act Prosecution

December 19, 2022

Three consolidated False Claims Act (“FCA”) lawsuits against chiropractor Yury Gampel (“Gampel”), 15 Modern Vascular office-based labs owned primarily by Gampel located across the United States, and five Modern Vascular-affiliated companies owned by Gampel alert other chiropractic, physician and other medical providers using office-based labs send a clear warning to other health care providers and suppliers for services covered or billed to Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE or other federal health care programs about the necessity to ensure their arrangements don’t involve illegal financial relationships or transactions.

False Claims Act Liability Arising From Participation In Or Filing Claims Involving Improper Inducements

The Justice Department suit against the defendants alleges the defendants both arose from the defendants participation in arrangements involving the offering and payment of illegal remuneration in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) and that the claims for benefits made to Medicare and other federal programs for care provided involving the arrangement violated the FCA.

The AKS generally prohibits any person or entity from soliciting, receiving, offering, or paying any direct or indirect prohibited remuneration as an inducement or reward for referring, recommending, ordering, or arranging for the purchase of any item or service for which payment may be made in whole or in part by a federal health care program. Parties violating the AKS commit a felony punishable with a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment for up to 10 years or both.

In addition to any criminal liability arising under the AKS, filing claims derived or involving transactions prohibited by the AKS also can trigger liability for violation of the FCA. The FCA makes it unlawful for any person to submit, directly or indirectly, false or fraudulent claims for payment to the Government by among other things:

Knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A) (the “presentment provision”); or
Knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B).

The FCA defines the term “knowingly” under the FCA very broadly. As defined, “knowingly” means that a person, with respect to information, (i) has actual knowledge of the information, (ii) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information, or (iii) acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b). No proof of specific intent to defraud is required to show that a person acted knowingly under the FCA.

Violations of the FCA subject the defendant to mandatory civil penalties per FCA violation, plus three times the amount of damages that the Government sustains as a result of the defendant’s actions. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). Under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(b)(7), health care providers submitting claims to Medicare or other federal health care programs also can face exclusion from participation in federal health care programs for FCA violations.

Health care providers filing claims for Medicare or other federal health plans can violate the FCA by knowingly presenting or causing to be presented claims for items or services that the person knew or should have known were not medically necessary, or were false or fraudulent. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320a-7a(a)(1).

Moreover, health care providers under the Medicare statute have an affirmative duty to familiarize themselves with the statutes, regulations, and guidelines regarding coverage for the Medicare services. As a condition of program participation, Medicare regulations require providers and suppliers to certify that:

The provider or supplier meets, and will continue to meet, the requirements of the Medicare statute and regulations, 42 C.F.R. § 424.516(a)(1), including that any claims and underlying transactions made in a claim for Medicare comply with the Federal anti-kickback statute and the Stark law), and on the supplier’s compliance with all otherwise applicable conditions of participation in Medicare; and
The provider or supplier will not knowingly to present or cause to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment by Medicare, or to submit claims with deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.

Additional certifications of continued compliance with these requirements also are required when claims are filed. Accordingly, since health care providers and suppliers are responsible for taking appropriate steps to familiarize themselves with the rules and regulations applicable to their claim and the transactions underlying it and certify in connection with the filing of the claim that the claim and its underlying transactions comply with the law, health care providers filing claims involving prohibited financial incentives or other transactions prohibited by law risk FCA liability.

Gampel, Modern Vascular FCA Complaint

Derived from the Justice Department’s assumption and consolidation of various qui tam lawsuits separately brought by various physicians, the United States filed its complaint in three consolidated lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (“FCA”) which allow a private citizen to sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery. The United States is also entitled to intervene in the lawsuits, as it did in these cases.

The resulting consolidated three consolidated Justice Department lawsuits seek to recover treble damages and civil penalties, and under common law and equitable theories of recovery from defendants for their billing of Medicare, TRICARE and other federal health care programs for claims resulting from transactions involving prohibited remuneration offered and provided in violation of the AKS under Gampel’s alleged schemes Nobility Management LLC; Modern Vascular LLC; Modern Vascular of South Florida LLC; Modern Vascular Management LLC; Modern Vascular Management – East LLC; Modern Vascular Management – West LLC; Modern Vascular Institute LLC; Modern Vascular of Mesa LLC; Modern Vascular of Glendale LLC; Modern Vascular of Sun City LLC; Modern Vascular of Tucson LLC; San Antonio Vascular Specialists Corp. dba Modern Vascular; Fort Worth Vascular Specialists Corp. dba Modern Vascular; Modern Vascular of Denver LLC; Modern Vascular – Navajo LLC; Modern Vascular of Fairfax LLC; Modern Vascular of Houston LLC; Modern Vascular of Indianapolis LLC; Modern Vascular of Southaven LLC; Modern Vascular of St. Louis LLC; and Modern Vascular of Kansas LLC.

The Justice Department complaint alleges Defendant Yury Gampel, a chiropractor, is the founder and former Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of a franchise of office-based labs (“OBL”) located in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia operating under the name Modern Vascular (collectively, the “Modern Vascular OBLs”). The Modern Vascular OBLs – each its own separate legal entity – focus on the treatment of peripheral arterial disease (“PAD”), particularly through an aggressive use of vascular intervention procedures, such as angioplasty and atherectomy. The complaint claims Gampel and the Modern Vascular defendants designed and promoted the franchises that incorporated a package of management and other services provided by various Modern Vascular defendant companies.

Defendant Nobility Management, LLC, provides management services to the Modern Vascular OBLs. Defendants Modern Vascular Management, LLC; Modern Vascular Management – East, LLC; and Modern Vascular Management – West, LLC, offer
IT and management support to Modern Vascular OBLs. Defendants Modern Vascular, LLC, and Modern Vascular of South Florida, LLC, are corporations controlled by Gampel that have various ownership interests in Modern Vascular OBLs. Through Modern Vascular, LLC, and Modern Vascular of South Florida, LLC, and in his own capacity, Gampel is the majority owner of the Modern Vascular OBLs. (These entities that own and manage the Modern Vascular OBLs are referred to collectively below as “Modern Vascular Corporate.”)

The complaint alleges that Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate designed and implemented a fraud scheme at Modern Vascular OBLs at the expense of patients and federal payors from at least January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2022. Among other things, the complaint charges Gampel and the Modern Vascular defendants offered physicians the opportunity to invest in Modern Vascular office-based labs to induce them to refer their Medicare and TRICARE patients to Modern Vascular for the treatment of peripheral arterial disease. More specifically, Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate opened Modern Vascular OBLs in new markets where referring physicians and vascular surgeons had established relationships. Prior to opening an OBL in a particular location, Gampel sought out up to 20 local physicians – usually podiatrists and pain management physicians – who traditionally referred to vascular surgeons and offered each up to a two percent ownership interest in the OBL in order to induce the physicians to refer to the OBL. Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate selected these particular physicians (hereinafter “physician investors”) to offer ownership investment because Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate identified them as potential high-referral sources. Once they invested in an OBL, Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate further required the physician-investors to make referrals to Modern Vascular OBLs as a condition for remaining as a physician-investor. The complaint also alleges that Gampel pressured vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists employed at the Modern Vascular office-based labs to increase the number of invasive surgical procedures performed by tracking procedures and setting aggressive weekly and monthly goals for such procedures. In particular, Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate provided remuneration to physician investors in Modern Vascular OBLs to induce those investors to refer patients to the Modern Vascular OBL.

The Justice Department charges that using this scheme, Defendants between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2022 submitted, and caused to be submitted, tens of millions of dollars in false or fraudulent claims to Medicare, TRICARE and other federal health care programs by offering and providing illegal remuneration to health care providers to induce referrals to the Modern Vascular OBLs in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b. To induce referrals, Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate provided remuneration to physician-investors in the form of equity ownership interests in an OBL, which also included distributions, the prospect of future distributions, and/or the prospect of a cash-out of the equity ownership amounts when
the Modern Vascular OBLs were sold. During the relevant time period, the Justice Department also claims Modern Vascular
OBLs received over $50 million from Medicare Part B alone for claims submitted for patients referred by physician-investors in violation of the FCA.

Warning To Other Heath Care Providers & Suppliers

In announcing its filing of the Gambrel FCA lawsuit, the Justice Department warned other federal health program providers and suppliers and their business partners, investors, employees and agents from violating the AKS, FCA or both in the provision of or billing of health care services or supplies. “As part of our mission to protect the American people, the FBI remains committed to safeguarding patients who rely on our healthcare systems,” said Deputy Assistant Director Aaron Tapp of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division. “The FBI and our law enforcement partners will continue to investigate those who abuse our healthcare systems, place patients at risk, and waste taxpayer dollars.”

This warning, along with the ever-lengthening list of federal criminal and civil prosecutions, convictions and settlements by the Justice Department, the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General and other agencies provide a strong warning to health care providers, suppliers and others involved in creating or administering transactions and other arrangements for the delivery and billing for health are to be billed to Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE and other health care arrangements covered by the AKS, the FCA or other federal or state health care fraud laws to take well documented care to ensure the care delivery arrangement does not involve transactions prohibited under the AKS or other federal or state health care fraud transactions and the care billed qualifies for reimbursement before submitting the claim. Parties who know or suspect that they may have participated in an arrangement prohibited under these laws or submitted prohibited claims should contact experienced legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege for assistance in reviewing those concerns and exploring options for correction or mitigation.

For More Information

If your organization would like to learn more about the concerns discussed in this update or seeks assistance auditing, updating, administering or defending its human resources, compensation, benefits, corporate ethics and compliance practices, or other performance related concerns, contact management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

An attorney Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is recognized for work helping organizations management people, operations and risk as a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Labor and Employment Law and Health Care Law; a “Best Lawyers” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law.”

For 35 years, Ms. Stamer’s work has focused on advising and assisting businesses and business leaders with these and other employment and other staffing, employee benefit, compensation, risk, performance and compliance management and other operational solutions and concerns. Her experience includes helping management both manage performance and manage legal risk and compliance. While helping businesses define and manage the conduct and performance of their employees, contractors and vendors, she also assists employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation, health and other employee benefit, workplace safety, leave, and other labor and employment laws, advises and defends businesses against labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, fraud and other regulatory compliance and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor, Department of Justice, SEC, Federal Trade Commission, HUD, HHS, DOD, Departments of Insurance, and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer also speaks, coaches management and publishes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see hereor contact Ms. Stamer directly.

Other Helpful Resources & Information

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other Breaking News, articles and other resources available including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, unsubscribe by updating your profile here.

NOTICE: Terms. These materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, a substitute for legal advice, an offer or commitment to provide legal advice or an admission. The information and statements in these materials may not address all relevant issues or apply to any situation or circumstances. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law evolves and in ways that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author disclaims and has no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any time. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication. Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein. ©2022 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Nonexclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, billing, compensation, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health IT, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Laboratory tests, Laws, long-term care, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medicare, Mergers and Acquisitions, nursing home, Outpatient, pain management, Pharmaceudical, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Reimbursement | Tagged: Anti-Kickback, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Reimbursement, Medicaid, Medicare, Office-based labs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

6 Texas Physicians Face Federal Health Care Fraud Charges For Alleged Improper Kickbacks & Lab Testing Claims

May 29, 2022

The Department of Justice sent another strong warning to physicians and other health care provides not to violate the False Claims Act by making improper patient referrals in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law, billing federal health care programs for medically unnecessary laboratory testing or other services or both when charged six Texas physicians with federal health care fraud this week. The prosecution of the physicians for laboratory tests arranged and billed through management services organizations also reminds physicians and other providers that reliance upon management services or other third-party service providers generally does not protect a physician participating in prohibited laboratory or other testing, durable medical equipment, facility, physical therapy or other health care billing or referral arrangements from liability.

Charges Against Texas Physicians

This week, the Justice Department added the following six physicians as defendants to criminal charges filed in a False Claims Act complaint filed in January 2022 against former True Health Diagnostics LLC (THD) CEO Christopher Grottenthaler, former Boston Heart Diagnostics Corporation (BHD) CEO Susan Hertzberg, former LRH CEO Jeffrey Madison, and others:

Doyce Cartrett, Jr., M.D., of Silsbee, Texas, allegedly received over $320,000 from LRH and two management services organizations or “MSOs,” Ascend MSO of TX LLC (Ascend) and Eridanus MG LLC (Eridanus), in return for his referrals.
Elizabeth Seymour, M.D., of Corinth, Texas, allegedly received over $280,000 from two MSOs, Ascend and Eridanus, in return for her referrals.
Emanuel Paul “E.P.” Descant, II, M.D., of Spring, Texas, allegedly received over $125,000 from two MSOs, North Houston MSO and Tomball Medical Management Inc., in return for his referrals.
Frederick Brown, M.D., of Missouri City, Texas, allegedly received over $190,000 from two MSOs, Ascend and Indus MG LLC (Indus), in return for his referrals.
Heriberto Salinas, M.D., of Cleburne, Texas, allegedly received over $75,000 from two MSOs, Ascend and Herculis MG LLC (Herculis), in return for his referrals.
Hong Davis, M.D., of Lewisville, Texas, allegedly received over $70,000 from two MSOs, Ascend and Herculis, in return for her referrals.

The complaint in United States, et al. ex rel. STF, LLC v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, et al., No. 4:16-cv-547 (E.D. Tex.) charges that small Texas hospitals including Rockdale Hospital dba Little River Healthcare (LRH), THD, BHD, the six physicians and others conspired to pay physicians to induce referrals to the hospitals for laboratory testing performed by THD or BHD. The charges stem from allegations made under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by STF LLC by Felice Gersh, M.D. and Chris Riedel. The United States intervened in the qui tam action in December 2021.

The complaint alleges the charged hospitals paid a portion of their laboratory profits to recruiters, who in turn kicked back those funds to the referring physicians through MSOs allegedly set up by the recruiters to make payments to referring physicians. The Justice Department charges the alleged kickbacks were disguised as investment returns but actually were based on, and offered in exchange for, the physicians’ referrals. The complaint alleges that laboratory tests resulting from this referral scheme were billed to various federal health care programs, and that the claims not only were tainted by improper inducements but, in many cases, also involved tests that were not reasonable and necessary.

The Justice Department reports that before adding charges against the six physicians to the complaint this week, the Justice Department recovered more than $31 million relating to conduct involving BHD, THD and LRH, including False Claims Act settlements with 29 physicians, two health care executives and a laboratory company.

Health Care Fraud Liability Under False Claims Act, Anti-Kickback Statute, Stark Law

The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce referrals of items or services covered by Medicare, Medicaid and other federally-funded programs. The Stark Law forbids a hospital or laboratory from billing Medicare for certain services referred by physicians that have a financial relationship with the hospital or laboratory. The Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law seek to ensure that medical providers’ judgments are not compromised by improper financial incentives and are instead based on the best interests of their patients.

The False Claims Act prohibits health care providers from billing federal health care programs for services resulting from referrals prohibited by the Anti-Kickback Statute or the Stark law.

Under the False Claims Act, a private party can file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the recovery. The False Claims Act also allows the Justice Department to intervene in such lawsuits and add claims and defendants, as happened in this litigation. The qui tam case is captioned United States, et al. ex rel. STF, LLC v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, et al., No. 4:16-cv-547 (E.D. Tex.). If a defendant is found liable for violating the act, the United States may recover three times the amount of its losses plus applicable penalties.

The United States’ pursuit of this lawsuit illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud generally with a special emphasis on physicians. For instance, U.S. Attorney Brit Featherston is quoted as saying, “Schemes that funnel health care referrals do not work without the participation of physicians. … They are not merely passive players in these elaborate schemes, but an integral part, without which the scheme could not exist. Our office is committed to rooting out health care fraud by pursuing all players involved the scheme, from the laboratories and their leaders to the marketers and the physicians who make it all possible. Naming these physicians in the complaint is evidence of that commitment.”

Given this clear warning, physicians and other prescribers, as well as recruiting, billing and management services organizations, laboratories and others involved in recruiting and marketing, providing or billing for laboratory or other services to double check the appropriateness of their referral and other practices keeping in mind that the Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law prohibitions against direct and indirect compensation can reach to a wide range of subtle value and benefits in addition to the obvious payment of cash or gifts delivered in a multitude of ways. The prosecution of these physicians for referrals made and compensation delivered under management services contracts also clearly warns physicians and other providers against expecting their reliance upon billing, management services or other staff or management service providers to shield them from liability if an improper referral or payment happens.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and managed care industry legal, public policy and operational concerns.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication.

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, billing, Centers For Disease Control, Conditions of Participation, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, healthcare, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Laboratory tests, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Money Laundering, nursing home, OIG, Opiates, Pharmaceudical, Physician, Physician Licensing, Reimbursement, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Opiate, pain management, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Biden-Harris Administration to Expand Vaccination Requirements for Health Care and Many Other Employers

September 9, 2021

All Medicare and Medicaid certified health care facilities, and a broad range of other employers must prepare to meet impending new federal COVID-19 vaccine mandates announced by the Biden-Harris Administration today.

According to today’s announcements all healthcare facilities participating in Medicare or Medicaid or employing 100 or more employees will be required to ensure all staff are vaccinated against COVID-19.

The Biden-Harris Administration says the new health industry COVID-19 vaccine mandates will be implemented through emergency regulations to be issued in October.

According to today’s announcement, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (“CMS”) in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) is developing an Interim Final Rule with Comment Period that will be issued in October that will extend vaccine mandates originally announced last month for all Medicare and Medicaid participating nursing home workers to include hospitals, dialysis facilities, ambulatory surgical settings, and home health agencies, among others, as a condition for participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. See CMS/CDC Mandating COVID Vaccination For All Nursing Home Staff.

The announcement of the vaccine mandates for healthcare workers coincides with the Biden-Harris Administration’s announcement of sweeping new vaccine mandates for all government workers, government contractors and employers employing more than 100 employees.

The two mandates will force most health care facilities to impose mask mandates for all staff in order to meet the requirement all staff be vaccinated.

CMS and CDC say the decision was based on the continued and growing spread of the virus in health care settings, especially in parts of the U.S. with higher incidence of COVID-19. They claim the action will protect patients of the 50,000 providers and over 17 million health care workers in Medicare and Medicaid certified facilities.

According to the CDC, nursing homes with an overall staff vaccination rate of 75% or lower experience higher rates of preventable COVID infection. In CMS’s review of available data, the agency is seeing lower staff vaccination rates among hospital and End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) facilities. To combat this issue, CMS is using its authority to establish vaccine requirements for all providers and suppliers that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Vaccinations have proven to reduce the risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 and are effective against the Delta variant.

In it’s announcement of the impending vaccination requirements, CDC urged health care facilities to prepare now to meet the new mandate in October. CMS expects certified Medicare and Medicaid facilities to act in the best interest of patients and staff by complying with new COVID-19 vaccination requirements.

CDC also urged any health care workers employed in these facilities who are not currently vaccinated are urged to begin the process immediately and facilities to use all available resources to support employee vaccinations, including employee education and clinics, as they work to meet new federal requirements.

While legal challenges to the mandate requirements are likely, most facilities that have not already adopted vaccine mandates are expected to adopt these mandates rather than risk losing eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement and other sanctions.

Beyondprogram disqualification and attendant financial pressures, announcement of the new vaccine mandates adds vaccination to the list of safety safeguards that healthcare facilities as employers can expect to be required to enforce as part of the occupational safety rules of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (”OSHA”).

OSHA already is sanctioning employers for violating COVID-19 related OSHA requirements. For instance, OSHA nailed Lakewood Resource and Referral Center Inc., dba Center for Education Medicine and Dentistry (CHEMED) with heavy fines for allegedly violating applicable COVID-19 safety guidelines in January, 2021.

In a July 23, 2021 citation letter, OSH proposes to fine CHEMED $273,064.00 for willfully violating OSHA by not providing a medical evaluation to determine each employee’s ability to use a N95 respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace to protect against SARS-CoV-2 virus while testing suspected COVID-19 individuals.

In addition to the proposed fine, the citation also orders CHEMED to take a series of corrective actions and to post notices in the workplace informing workers of the violation.

Along with the CHEMED citation, OSH also cited a staffing agency contracted to provide nursing staffing to CHEMED, Homecare Therapies for also failing to conduct medical evaluations and fit tests. It received two violations and a proposed fine of $13,653.

In the face of these potential consequences, most covered health care facilities and other employers impacted by the mandate are likely to implement mandates unless and until these requirements are struct down by the courts or withdrawn.

Assuming the Administration follows appropriate procedures to adopt the rules, most legal commentators do not expect the legal challenges opposing the mandate orders to be successful in the courts particularly after the Supreme Court refused to overturn or hear arguments for overturning a unanimous decision of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Klassen v. Trustees of Indiana University that refused to enjoin a vaccine mandate imposed by Indiana University as a condition of student or staff in person participation in classes or other activities.

While most healthcare and other covered businesses are not expected to challenge the rules, compliance us likely to trigger backlash from some unvaccinated workers strongly opposed to becoming vaccinated. Employers may find that some employees will resign their employment or take other tactics to avoid becoming vaccinated. Even those who elect to become vaccinated to retain their employment are likely to express opposition and dissatisfaction that could create liability exposures for the employers if it becomes a basis for retaliation claim.

Employers in Texas and certain other states that have adopted rules restricting or prohibiting vaccine, mask or other mandates also may face challenges based on the state rules.

In light of these and other uncertainties and challenges, Healthcare and Other or Employers generally should seek legal advice and assistance from legal counsel experienced with the relevant health care, labor and employment, privacy and other concerns.

More Information

This article is republished by permission of the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. To review the original work, see here.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering here and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. For specific information about the these or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years working as an on demand, special project, consulting, general counsel or other basis with domestic and international business, charitable, community and government organizations of all types, sizes and industries and their leaders on labor and employment and other workforce compliance, performance management, internal controls and governance, compensation and benefits, regulatory compliance, investigations and audits, change management and restructuring, disaster preparedness and response and other operational, risk management and tactical concerns.

Most widely recognized for her work with health care, life sciences, insurance and data and technology organizations, she also has worked extensively with health plan and insurance, employee benefits, financial, transportation, manufacturing, energy, real estate, accounting and other services, public and private academic and other education, hospitality, charitable, civic and other business, government and community organizations. and their leaders.

Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising, representing, defending, and training domestic and international public and private business, charitable, community and governmental organizations and their leaders, employers, employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries and service providers, insurers, and others has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. As part of these involvements, she has worked, published and spoken extensively on these and other human resources, employee benefits, compensation, worker classification and other workforce and other services; insurance; health care; workers’ compensation and occupational disease; business reengineering, disaster and distress; and many other performance, risk management, compliance, public policy and regulatory affairs, and other operational concerns.

A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension project, Ms. Stamer also has worked internationally and domestically as an advisor to business, community and government leaders on these and other legislative, regulatory and other legislative and regulatory design, drafting, interpretation and enforcement, as well as regularly advises and represents organizations on the design, administration and defense of workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline, reengineering, regulatory and operational compliance and other management practices and actions.

Ms. Stamer also serves in leadership of a broad range of professional and civic organizations and provides insights and thought leadership through her extensive publications, public speaking and volunteer service with a diverse range of organizations including as Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Vice Chair of the International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Chair and Council Representative and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, past Region IV Chair and national Society of Human Resources Management Consultant Forum Board Member, past Texas Association of Business BACPAC Chair, Regional Chair and Dallas Chapter Chair, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation and many others.

For more information about these concerns or Ms. Stamer’s work, experience, involvements, other publications, or programs, see www.cynthiastamer.com, on Facebook, on LinkedIn or Twitter or e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Accreditation, ambulance, Ambulatory care, Anethesiology, Biological Warfare, CDC, Centers For Disease Control, Child Care, Conditions of Participation, Coronavirus, Corporate Compliance, Covid, Direct Primary Care, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, early childhood education, Emergency Care, Employer, Employment law, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, healthcare, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Laboratory tests, Life Sciences, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medical Licensure, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Mental Heatlh, nursing home, occupational health, OSHA, Pandemic, Peer Review, Physician, Reimbursement, Union, vaccination | Tagged: ARRA, Corporate Compliance, Covid, DOJ, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, HEAT, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Fraud Task Force, OCR, Pharma, pharmacist, pharmacy, Physician, Physicians, Privacy, Reimbursement, vaccine, vaccine mandate | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Steps Up Nursing Home Inspections & Tightens Inspections In Response To Continuing COVID-19 Outbreaks & Deaths

April 3, 2020

Skilled nursing and other long term care facilities commonly known as “nursing homes” (“LTC facilities”),[i] rehabilitation, assisted living, retirement and other facilities and communities caring for elderly, disabled, aged or other infirm patients or residents should use recently released tools to confirm the adequacy of and update their current COVID-19 and other infectious disease prevention and control and other key policies and practices with the latest Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requirements and guidelines in light of recently announced changes to CMS nursing home inspection policies (the “Targeted Inspection Policy”)[iii] that target nursing homes with COVID-19 outbreaks or death for likely inspection announced March 23, 2020 including all existing requirements including new “recommendations” on nursing homes on COVID-19 preparedness and response announced April 2, 2020 (the “April Recommendations”).[iii]

Prompted by the continuing explosive growth in COVID-19 infection and deaths among nursing home residents and widespread deficiencies found during recent inspections at the Kirkland, Washington Life Care Center nursing homes (the “Kirkland Facilities”) made notorious by the death of 23 people and other nursing homes with COVID-19 inspections, the Targeted Inspection Policy and April Recommendations supplement and give more teeth to the CMS Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nursing Homes (the “3/3 Directive”)[iv] previously released by CMS released in conjunction with President Trump’s Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak (“COVID Emergency Declaration”) in response to concerns raised by reports of 19 COVID-19 related deaths at the Kirkland Facilities[v] on March 13, 2020.

Despite CMS and CDC’s efforts to reign in nursing home based COVID-19 infections and deaths by ordering nursing homes in the Nursing Home Directive to limit outside visitors and take other precautions outlined in the Nursing Home Directive and release of other guidance and tools, nursing home based COVID-19 infections and deaths have continued to soar since March 13, 2020.[vi] Meanwhile, onsite audits at the Kirkland Facilities and other facilities during March uncovered concerning deficiencies in the compliance at the Kirkland Facilities and many other nursing homes across the nation, as well as the need to address other weaknesses in current CMS and CDC practices and guidelines that the agencies determined were perpetuating practices that left nursing home residents exposed to COVID-19.

The new Targeted Inspection Policy and April Recommendations attempt to address these compliance and other concerns by updating, clarifying and supplementing previously established requirements and guidance, providing new tools for nursing homes and their inspectors to use to assess nursing home compliance with the latest standards and stepping up inspections and enforcement of nursing homes that experience COVID-19 outbreaks.[vii]

April Recommendations Send Warnings, Share New Tools

To this end, the just announced April Recommendations urge nursing homes to move quickly to clean up their practices by:

Urging nursing homes to immediately ensure that they are complying with all CMS and CDC guidance related to COVID-19 and other infection control and other requirements;
Urging nursing homes immediately to implement symptom screening for all staff, residents, and visitors – including temperature checks; [viii]
Urging nursing homes to ensure all staff are using appropriate PPE when interacting with patients and residents, to the extent PPE is available and per CDC guidance on conservation of PPE;
Confirming the availability of Medicare coverage of Medicare enrolled residents performed by laboratories and that facilities can allow laboratory personnel into facilities to perform the tests;
Urging State and local leaders to consider the needs of long term care facilities with respect to supplies of PPE and COVID-19 tests as nursing homes are a critical part of the healthcare system, and because of the ease of spread in long term care facilities and the severity of illness that occurs in residents with COVID-19,
Recommending facilities use separate staffing teams for residents to the best of their ability to avoid transmission within nursing homes in response to evidence that using staff shared between multiple facilities helped to fuel the COVID-19 outbreak in the Kirkland Facilities;
Consistent previously published guidance and resources on the CDC Isolation Sites and Alternative Care Sites webpage,[ix] urging nursing homes to work with State and local leaders to designate separate facilities or units within a facility to separate COVID-19 negative residents from COVID-19 positive residents and individuals with unknown COVID-19 status; and
Encouraging facilities to use new targeted survey assessment tools adopted by CMS to guide inspections under the Targeted Inspection Program to self-assess and make appropriate adjustments to tighten their facility compliance with applicable requirements and guidelines promptly.

While characterized as “recommendations,” the reaffirmation in the April Recommendations that CMS intends to continue to follow the new Targeted Inspection Policy announced March 23, 2020 sends a strong message to all nursing homes that CMS does not view compliance with the recommendations as optional.

Under the Targeted Inspection Policy, CMS intends to conduct targeted inspections giving prioritization for Immediate Jeopardy investigations over recertification surveys for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA) laboratories.

According to CMS’ announcement regarding the Targeted Inspection Policy, only the following types of federal inspections will be prioritized and conducted over the next few weeks:

Complaint inspections: State survey agencies will continue to conduct inspections related to complaints and facility-reported incidents that are triaged at the Immediate Jeopardy level. Inspectors will use a streamlined Infection Control review tool, regardless of the Immediate Jeopardy allegation.
Targeted Infection Control inspections: Federal and state inspectors will conduct targeted infection control inspections of providers identified through CMS collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). These inspectors will use a streamlined targeted review checklist to minimize the impact on provider activities, while ensuring providers are implementing actions to protect health and safety. This will consist of both onsite and offsite inspections.
Self-Assessments: The Infection Control checklist referenced above will also be shared with providers and suppliers, to allow for self-assessment of their Infection Control plans. This may be the best solution in some cases when there is a lack of personal protective equipment or state surveyors available.

During this time frame, CMS has indicated it will not conduct the following inspections:

Standard inspections for nursing homes, hospitals, home health agencies, intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities, and hospices; and

Revisit inspections not associated with Immediate Jeopardy.

In addition to redefining the priorities and scope for conducting inspections in the new Targeted Inspection Policy, CMS also refocused the inspection process that surveyors are expected to use when conducting inspections under the Targeted Inspection Policy which includes existing components of CMS’s infection control inspection process updated to include the latest CDC and CMS guidance. Under the Targeted Inspection Policy CMS and state inspectors will be guided by a newly developed and updated targeted assessment tool in assessing if certain facilities are prepared to meet CMS’s expectations for preventing the spread of COVID-19. When gaps are identified, CMS warns that facilities will be required to take corrective actions to close the gaps.

Facilities are well advised to follow the recommendation of CMS to use the new surveyor tools to self-assess their own ability to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in accordance with applicable CMS requirements both to mitigate potential exposures to CMS sanctions and because CMS also is encouraging residents and families to be proactive about nursing home safety by among other things asking facility staff how the facility performed on its self-assessment. Facilities and their leaders at all times should keep in mind the significant risks that they are likely to incur if significant deficiencies are found from an inspection. While the March 23, 2020 announcement of the Targeted Inspection Policy states that CMS is not seeking to be punitive, but rather to respond to urgent issues while proactively ensuring providers are compliant with federal health and safety standards. Accordingly, CMS has indicated that CMS intends to exercise enforcement discretion, unless Immediate Jeopardy situations arise. Given the conclusions announced regarding Immediate Jeopardy findings found from the inspection at the Kirkland Facility, however, nursing homes are well advised to assume that the occurrence of COVID-19 related deaths or infections at their facilities might create a significant risk of Immediate Jeopardy findings with regard to their facilities which could result in significant sanctions.

CMS and other agencies continue to tailor their response to the COVID-19 outbreak. In addition to verifying and maintaining their compliance with current COVID-19 and other CMS, CDC and state and local requirements and guidelines, nursing homes and their leaders also should continue to monitor emerging developments and guidance from CMS, CDC, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) and their state and local regulatory bodies.

[i] Nursing homes (also known as “skilled nursing facilities” under the Medicare program and “nursing facilities” under Medicaid; or “long-term care facilities”).

[ii] Press release Trump Administration Issues Key Recommendations to Nursing Homes, State and Local Governments, CMS (2020), https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/trump-administration-issues-key-recommendations-nursing-homes-state-and-local-governments (last visited Apr 2, 2020).

[iii] Fact sheet Kirkland, Washington Update and Survey Prioritization Fact Sheet, CMS (2020), https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/kirkland-washington-update-and-survey-prioritization-fact-sheet (last visited Mar 31, 2020).

[iv] Guidance For Infection Control and Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nursing Homes, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES (2020), https://www.cms.gov/files/document/3-13-2020-nursing-home-guidance-covid-19.pdf (last visited Mar 30, 2020).

[iv] Nursing home with the biggest cluster of covid-19 deaths to date in the U.S. thought it was facing an influenza outbreak, a spokesman says, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nursing-home-with-the-biggest-cluster-of-covid-19-deaths-to-date-in-the-us-thought-it-was-facing-an-influenza-outbreak-a-spokesman-says/ar-BB11fvgj (last visited Mar 30, 2020).

[vi] See e.g., Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nursing Homes (REVISED), CMS (2020), https://www.cms.gov/files/document/qso-20-14-nh-revised.pdf (last visited Apr 2, 2020).

[vii] In the initial wave of surveys during the week of March 30, CMS reports finding 36 percent of facilities inspected in recent days did not follow proper hand washing guidelines and 25 percent failed to demonstrate proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) required by longstanding federal regulations. Press release Trump Administration Issues Key Recommendations to Nursing Homes, State and Local Governments, CMS (2020), https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/trump-administration-issues-key-recommendations-nursing-homes-state-and-local-governments (last visited Apr 3, 2020).

[viii] Facilities that have not already done so should consult with experienced legal counsel for assistance about the advisability of providing or posting notifications and/or securing consents to these screening procedures, advisable or recommended procedures regarding the collection, use, or disclosure of screenings or their results, or other safeguards to manage relevant privacy or other legal rights or risks.

[ix] See Alternate Care Sites and Isolation Sites (March 25, 2020) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/healthcare-facilities/alternative-care-sites.html. Also see Topic Collection: Alternate Care Sites (including shelter medical care) https://asprtracie.hhs.gov/technical-resources/48/alternate-care-sites-including-shelter-medical-care/47.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. In addition to this update, the author also has prepared a more comprehensive discussion of these concerns scheduled for publication by the American Bar Association Health Publication in April, 2020. To request access for a prepublication unofficial manuscript of that upcoming publication or of more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively on pandemic, business and other crisis planning, preparedness and response for more than 30 years.

Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, and insurers; managed care and insurance organizations; hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EHR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EHR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

Author of “Privacy and the Pandemic Workshop” for the Association of State and Territorial Health Plans, as well as a multitude of other health industry matters, workforce and health care change and crisis management and other highly regarded publications and presentations, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. ©2020 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | 1335 Waiver, Biological Warfare, Centers For Disease Control, Conditions of Participation, Coronavirus, Corporate Compliance, COVID-19, Disaster Relief, Disease Management, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, HHS, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Laboratory tests, Licensing, long-term care, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, nursing home, Pandemic, Patient Empowerment, Physician, public health, Public Policy, quality reporting, Reimbursement, Skilled Nursing Facility, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

One Door for Criminal Health Care Fraud Disclosures: DOJ’s Fraud Division and HHS-OIG Consolidate Self-Disclosure—and Close the SDP to Criminal Conduct

What the Joint Policy Does

Important Limits Buried in the Footnotes

What Changed in the Updated HHS-OIG SDP

The Parallel Civil Track: The DOJ–HHS FCA Self-Disclosure Pilot Program

Why the Timing Matters: A Rapidly Escalating Enforcement Environment

Analysis: The Hard Part Is the Triage

Action Items by Stakeholders

Bottom Line

For Help or More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

FDA & CMS Partnering To Promote Accurate and Reliable Diagnostic Tests

LDTs Defined

FDA Steps Up LDT Oversight

For More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Chiropractor, Modern Vascular Office-Based Labs and Modern Vascular Corporate Entities Face False Claims Act Prosecution

False Claims Act Liability Arising From Participation In Or Filing Claims Involving Improper Inducements

Gampel, Modern Vascular FCA Complaint

Warning To Other Heath Care Providers & Suppliers

For More Information

Other Helpful Resources & Information

6 Texas Physicians Face Federal Health Care Fraud Charges For Alleged Improper Kickbacks & Lab Testing Claims

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Biden-Harris Administration to Expand Vaccination Requirements for Health Care and Many Other Employers

CMS Steps Up Nursing Home Inspections & Tightens Inspections In Response To Continuing COVID-19 Outbreaks & Deaths

Recent Posts

Archives

About Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this blog

Archives

Solutions Law Press Health Care Update

One Door for Criminal Health Care Fraud Disclosures: DOJ’s Fraud Division and HHS-OIG Consolidate Self-Disclosure—and Close the SDP to Criminal Conduct

What the Joint Policy Does

Important Limits Buried in the Footnotes

What Changed in the Updated HHS-OIG SDP

The Parallel Civil Track: The DOJ–HHS FCA Self-Disclosure Pilot Program

Why the Timing Matters: A Rapidly Escalating Enforcement Environment

Analysis: The Hard Part Is the Triage

Action Items by Stakeholders

Bottom Line

For Help or More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Share this:

FDA & CMS Partnering To Promote Accurate and Reliable Diagnostic Tests

LDTs Defined

FDA Steps Up LDT Oversight

For More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

Chiropractor, Modern Vascular Office-Based Labs and Modern Vascular Corporate Entities Face False Claims Act Prosecution

False Claims Act Liability Arising From Participation In Or Filing Claims Involving Improper Inducements

Gampel, Modern Vascular FCA Complaint

Warning To Other Heath Care Providers & Suppliers

For More Information

Other Helpful Resources & Information

Share this:

6 Texas Physicians Face Federal Health Care Fraud Charges For Alleged Improper Kickbacks & Lab Testing Claims

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

Biden-Harris Administration to Expand Vaccination Requirements for Health Care and Many Other Employers

Share this:

CMS Steps Up Nursing Home Inspections & Tightens Inspections In Response To Continuing COVID-19 Outbreaks & Deaths

Share this:

Recent Posts

Archives

About Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this blog

Archives

Solutions Law Press Health Care Update