“Incident to” billing is widely practiced, and its regulations are generally well-known. But one Arizona physician recently found himself pleading guilty in federal court on April 3, 2024, to a criminal healthcare fraud charge over improperly billing Medicare and private payors for healthcare services that failed to abide by the rules over “incident to” billing. This blog post explores how this lack of compliance resulted in such a serious criminal consequence.
litigation
Husch Blackwell Launches New FCA-Themed Podcast
We are proud to announce a much-needed addition to Husch Blackwell’s lineup of podcasts. Last week, we launched False Claims Act Insights, a new podcast devoted to exploring issues relating to False Claims Act (FCA) investigations and litigation. The show is hosted by Jonathan Porter—a partner in our firm’s White Collar, Internal…
Hospital Turns Tables on Whistleblower: Federal Judge Sends Hospital’s Case Against Whistleblower to Trial
In the world of qui tams, it is usually the whistleblower pushing cases to trial. But on February 23, 2023, a federal judge in West Virginia set down for trial a hospital’s case against a whistleblower. Now, in a trial set for late March 2023, a jury is set to determine whether a whistleblower and the general counsel for a competing health system engaged in malicious prosecution and tortious interference by filing a qui tam against a West Virginia hospital.
Thrilled to Announce the Launch of Hospice Insights: The Law and Beyond
We are thrilled both to welcome four new hospice attorneys to Husch Blackwell and for the launch of their new podcast “Hospice Insights: The Law and Beyond.”
In this first episode, Meg Pekarske, Bryan Nowicki, Erin Burns and Andrew Brenton discuss the exciting opportunities resulting from their move to Husch Blackwell. The episode is available…
Calls and text messages from healthcare organizations: New developments under the TCPA’s ’emergency purpose’ exception
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which imposes a penalty of $500-$1,500 per violation for pre-recorded or auto-dialed calls to cell phones, contains two statutory exceptions to liability:
- where the recipient of the call provided his or her prior express consent to be called, or
- where the call was placed for an “emergency purpose.”
47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1). While much attention has been focused on “consent,” the FCC’s definition of “emergency purpose” has remained relatively untested in TCPA litigation.
That landscape may be beginning to change. The federal district court’s recent decision in the putative class action lawsuit Roberts v. Medco Health Solutions, et al., No. 4:15 CV 1368 CDP (E.D. Mo., July 26, 2016) recognized that consistent with the FCC’s promulgated definition, the emergency purpose exception must be interpreted broadly to cover any calls that may affect the health and safety of a consumer.