David Pursell

Subscribe to David Pursell's Posts

On March 10, 2014, the parties to U.S. ex rel. Baklid-Kunz v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center et al. entered into a Settlement Agreement to the resolve the claims in the United States’ Complaint in Intervention in this matter. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Halifax must pay the settlement amount of $85 million by…

This morning, March 3, at what was to be the commencement of the jury trial in U.S. ex rel. Baklid-Kunz v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center (Case No: 6:09-cv-1002-Orl-31TBS), the parties informed the Court that they had reached a tentative settlement.  The parties were given until March 10, 2014 for file a Joint Motion to …

A recent OIG Advisory Opinion (Adv. Op. 13-15) is, to a certain degree, more interesting for one of its footnotes than the body of the opinion itself. The footnote addresses a hotly debated issue, originally raised in an OIG Management Advisory Report (MAR) in 1991. That MAR took the position that an agreement between a hospital and a hospital-based physician group was a “suspect arrangement” under the Anti-Kickback Statute because the physician group was essentially required to split its revenue with the hospital–including requiring the group to provide uncompensated services to the hospital.

The OIG modified this position somewhat in the Supplement Compliance Program Guidance for Hospitals in 2005. In that compliance guidance, the OIG stated that an exclusive arrangement that required a hospital-based physician group to provide “reasonable administrative or limited clinical duties directly related to the hospital-based profession services at no or a reduced charge” would be permissible. The Compliance Guidance cautioned, however, that uncompensated or below-market-rate services would still be subject to “close scrutiny.”

On November 13 and November 18, the federal district court handed down separate rulings on summary judgment motions in a Florida Stark Law case that many consider the new Tuomey–U.S. ex rel. Baklid-Kunz v. Halifax Medical Center. In the first decision, the Court granted the U.S. partial summary judgment on the Stark violation with respect to compensation paid to certain medical oncologists employed by the hospital. In the second decision, the Court denied the hospital’s motion for summary judgment with respect to certain neurosurgeons employed by the hospital. Both decisions tee up important hospital/physician employment issues for trial.

The case stems from a qui tam False Claims Act lawsuit filed in 2009 in which Elin Baklid-Kunz, the former compliance officer, made allegations regarding Halifax Hospital Medical Center (“Halifax Hospital”) and Halifax Staffing, Inc. (“Halifax Staffing”) (collectively, “Halifax”). The compliance officer alleged that Halifax:

  1. Had financial relationships with physicians that did not meet a Stark exception, and as a result the physicians inappropriately referred Medicare services to Halifax; and
  2. Inappropriately billed other services to Medicare.

The Department of Justice chose to intervene in the lawsuit in 2011 with respect to the Stark Law issues. Halifax filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the U.S. filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with respect to the Stark Law issues.

Ruling on the Government’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Two different compensation arrangements were the subject of these decisions. In the first decision, the Court considered the Government’s motion for partial summary judgment with respect to compensation paid to the medical oncologist employed by Halifax and the resulting designated health service referrals from those physicians. The alleged Stark violations were the result of employment agreements entered into with six medical oncologists in 2005 that provided for an incentive bonus pool equal to 15% of the “operating margin for the Medial Oncology program” of the Hospital. Even though the physicians were permitted to divide that pool among themselves as they determined, which they did based on individual production, the Hospital admitted that the pool included revenue from services that were not personally performed by the medical oncologists, such as fees related to the administration of chemotherapy.

The jury in the Tuomey case (U.S. ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey Healthcare Systems, Inc.) returned a verdict in favor of the government yesterday, May 8, 2013.  As is well known, this is the re-trial of a case centered on a series of employment agreements that Tuomey Healthcare entered to allegedly capture referrals…

President Barack Obama signed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, often called the “fiscal cliff” agreement, on January 2, 2013. Buried in the 59 pages of the act is a seven-line amendment to Section 1870 of the Social Security Act. This section bars recovery of overpayments from providers who are “without fault” and automatically deems a provider to be without fault three years from the year in which the original payment was made (unless there is evidence of fault). The three-year “without fault” limitation provision was enacted in 1972. Without much notice, the fiscal cliff deal extended this to five years.

The push for extension of the limitation began when the Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report recommending to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that it pursue legislation to extend the statute of limitations. (See OIG, Obstacles to Collection of Millions in Medicare Overpayments.) This report blamed the time limitations on reopening and recovery of payments (four years and three years, respectively) as the reason why approximately $330 million in overpayments could not be recovered by CMS. The OIG also concluded that CMS’ inadequate guidance and monitoring of contractors was to blame. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has issued a report estimating that $500 million would be added to the federal treasury by 2022 as a result of the statute of limitation change. (See CBO, Detail on Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title VI.)

The biggest question for providers is how to deal with this change going forward. The following illustration demonstrates how the three-year limitation period applied: Provider was notified on February 22, 2009, that it had been paid for services provided to beneficiary. On January 2, 2013, the contractor determined that provider was overpaid for these services. If there was no evidence that provider acted fraudulently, this overpayment could not be recovered because under the statute of limitations the right to do so expired on December 31, 2012. Had the contractor determined that the provider was overpaid on any date prior to December 31, 2012, it would have been recoverable. (See Medicare Financial Management Manual, Chapter 3, Section 80.1.) Accordingly, any payments made in 2009 or before were not recoverable as of January 1, 2013.

Last week, Paul Ryan accepted the nomination for Vice President.  In his acceptance speech, he cited “Obamacare” as the greatest threat to Medicare, but many hospitals view the expansion of coverage for low-income individuals positively.  More and more community hospitals are urging their state governments to accept payments for expanded Medicaid programs under the…