Contact
Boston
Providence
November 6, 2018
Sweeping New Opioid Law Extends Anti-Kickback Liability to Private Insurance Market in Three Areas
SWEEPING NEW OPIOID LAW EXTENDS ANTI-KICKBACK LIABILITY TO PRIVATE INSURANCE MARKET IN RESPONSE TO FRAUDULENT PRACTICES INVOLVING RECOVERY HOMES, CLINICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES AND LABORATORIES
Background
On October 24, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment (SUPPORT) for Patient and Communities Act (the “SUPPORT Act”), a wide-ranging and comprehensive bill aimed at combating the opioid epidemic that received overwhelming bi-partisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. One key provision, titled Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 (the “‘all-payor’ anti-kickback provision”), expands the reach of the federal government to prosecute not only individuals who offer, solicit or accept payments or other incentives for the generation of business or referrals of federally insured patients (which since 1972 has been prohibited under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b), (“AKS”)), but also individuals who offer, solicit or accept payments or other incentives for the generation of business or referrals of privately insured patients to three specific health care entities: recovery homes, clinical treatment facilities or laboratories. The prohibitions apply to the solicitation or receipt of remuneration for any referrals to recovery homes, clinical treatment facilities or laboratories, regardless of whether or not related to treating substance use disorders. Similar to the AKS, the “all payor” anti-kickback provision is a criminal statute which carries the potential for even more significant penalties than the AKS, including fines up to $200,000, imprisonment up to 10 years, or both, for each occurrence.
Prosecution Under Which Law?
The SUPPORT Act explicitly states that the “all-payor” anti-kickback provision does not apply to conduct that is prohibited under the federal AKS. Therefore, improper offers and solicitations to generate business or referrals of federally insured patients to recovery homes, clinical treatment facilities or laboratories will continue to be prosecuted under the AKS and not the SUPPORT Act. As a result, violators will be subject to AKS criminal penalties which include fines up to $100,000 or imprisonment up to ten years, or both. In addition, civil fines and remedies under the Civil Monetary Penalties Law are also applicable for federal AKS violations.
However, the SUPPORT Act does not preempt state law, so conduct that violates both the SUPPORT Act and state law could be prosecuted under either the new Act or the applicable state law. Which begs the question, under which statute will violations involving kickbacks to recovery homes, clinical treatment facilities or laboratories for referrals of privately insured patients be prosecuted – the SUPPORT Act or state law?
Exceptions
While both the AKS and the “all-payor” anti-kickback provision contain certain statutory exceptions, the exceptions are not identical and the power to create new exceptions or to clarify the existing exceptions rests with different federal authorities. With regards to the “all-payor” anti-kickback provision, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), has the authority to create new exceptions or to clarify the existing statutory exceptions. In contrast, the secretary of HHS possesses the power to create safe harbors to the AKS. Whether this separate delegation of authority will lead to differing protections under each statute, the answer is unclear.
The “All-Payor” Anti-Kickback Provision (SUPPORT Act, Sections 8121- 8122)
As noted, the “all-payor” anti-kickback provision is a new federal enforcement tool designed to reach fraudulent business transactions and referrals of private insurance patients to three specific types of health care entities: recovery homes, clinical treatment facilities, and laboratories. This provision was created to address the rampant fraud in the substance abuse treatment and recovery industry that targets individuals with private health insurance due to the robust benefits provided by the private health plans. One prolific scheme involves “body brokers” who target and exploit vulnerable individuals seeking treatment for their addictions by luring them, through deceptive advertising and marketing practices, to certain treatment facilities. The “brokers” are paid kickbacks by the facilities to identify and recruit individuals with addictions and refer them to the facility. And, while an illegal kickback would not inherently harm a patient (provided the referral is to a qualified facility or clinician and the patient receives care and treatment that is medically necessary), these brokers often refer the patients to unscrupulous clinicians and treatment centers that do not provide evidence-based addiction treatment. The individuals’ health plans are subsequently billed for excessive treatments, tests, and other services that may not be medically necessary or even provided. While the health plans are victimized by paying for services that are valueless, the impact on the individuals combating their addictions can be devastating as they do not receive the medically necessary and often life-saving services required to treat their addictions.
Exceptions to the “All-Payor” Anti-Kickback Provision
The exceptions specific to this law are:
- Properly disclosed discounts under a health care benefit program that are reflected in the costs claimed or charges made.
- Payments to bona fide employees or independent contractors if the payments are not determined by or vary by:
- The number of individuals referred to a particular recovery home, clinical treatment facility, or laboratory;
- The number of tests or procedures performed; or,
- The amount billed to or received from, in part or in whole, the health care benefit program from the individuals referred to a particular recovery home, clinical treatment facility, or laboratory.
- Discounts in the price of drugs furnished under the Medicare coverage gap discount program.
- Payments for services that meet the AKS safe harbor for personal services or management contracts.
- Coinsurance and copayment waivers and discounts if:
- Not routinely provided; and,
- Provided in good faith.
- Remuneration that meets the AKS exception.
- Remuneration made according to alternative payment models or arrangements used by a State, health insurance issuer, or group health plan that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) has determined are necessary for care coordination or value-based care.
- Any other payment, remuneration, discount, or reduction as determined by the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of HHS, by regulation.
Conclusion
As the opioid crisis continues to reach epidemic proportions across the nation, key stakeholders, such as state and federal governments, law enforcement entities, professional licensing boards, and a wide-range of clinicians, physicians, substance abuse experts, and community organizers are collaborating in the fight to curtail drug abuse. These efforts include expanding resources to those vulnerable individuals seeking to regain their lives through intensive recovery treatment efforts, as well as stringent enforcement and prosecution of individuals and entities who prey on those vulnerable individuals. The “all-payor” anti-kickback provision should serve to enhance the efforts to combat the devastation wrought by the opioid tidal wave.
Please check this website for any new information regarding the implementation of the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018.
H.R.6 - SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act
Caroline Hopland, a law clerk with Summit Health Law Partners, assisted with this article. She is a second-year student at Boston University School of Law where she is an editor on the Journal of Science & Technology Law. You can find her on LinkedIn.
Sign up for email alerts
© 2021 | website: visual dialogue
News
Health Law
-
August 27, 2020
Best Lawyers in America® 2021 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
June 03, 2020
Adelita Orefice, Esq. Honored by Rhode Island Monthly
-
April 17, 2020
Healthcare fraud warning from the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney arising out of COVID-19
-
April 10, 2020
Financial Solutions for Small Businesses Disrupted by COVID-19
-
March 26, 2020
Massachusetts and the Federal Government Expand Telemedicine Services and Coverage in Response to COVID-19
-
March 23, 2020
COVID-19 Update for Our Clients
-
August 27, 2019
Best Lawyers in America® 2020 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
November 05, 2018
Adelita Orefice Earns Certification in Healthcare Compliance
-
October 22, 2018
Super Lawyers® Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
September 18, 2018
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
DPH releases proposed amendments to Determination of Need regulation
-
August 20, 2018
| Robert Blaisdell
Governor Baker Signs Sweeping Reform on Employee non-Competition Agreements Law
-
August 15, 2018
Best Lawyers in America® recognizes Summit Health Law Partners attorneys for their excellence in law.
-
October 24, 2017
| Jeffrey Chase-Lubitz
Legal Issues and the Aging Physician
-
October 11, 2017
| Andrew Levine
Department of Public Health Presentation on DoN Regulations
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
July 20, 2017
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that terminating an employee for using medical marijuana may constitute handicap discrimination.
-
February 16, 2017
| Diane Moes
The ACA May Be in Jeopardy, but MACRA Isn’t Likely to Go Away
-
January 16, 2017
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom
DPH Adopts New Determination of Need Regulations
-
November 09, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
UPDATE: Preliminary Injunction Temporarily Halts Implementation of Final Rule Prohibiting Pre-Dispute Arbitration Contracts in LTC Facilities
-
October 24, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
UPDATE: Nursing Facilities Sue HHS to Block Ban on Pre-Dispute Binding Arbitration Agreements
-
October 17, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
HHS Prohibits Long-Term Care Facilities from Using Pre-Dispute Binding Arbitration Agreements
-
August 31, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Massachusetts Enacts Equal Pay Act: What employers can do now to prepare for its implementation
-
August 29, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Announces Major Determination of Need Regulatory Reform Initiative
-
August 29, 2016
New MA Prescription Monitoring Program Goes Live August 22, 2016
-
August 15, 2016
| Crystal Bloom, Amanda Beauregard
OPPS 2017 – Implementation of Section 603 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015
-
August 12, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell
CMS cracks down on “abuse” of nursing home residents via social media
-
July 20, 2016
| Kelly McGee, Adelita Orefice
Rhode Island Prohibits Physician Non-Competes
-
June 28, 2016
Massachusetts Trial Court Dismisses Wrongful Employment Termination Claim Based on Medical Marijuana Use
-
May 17, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Noncompliance with Security Deposit Law Could Be a Defense to Eviction
-
April 19, 2016
| Crystal Bloom
Update Regarding DPH Increased Oversight of Long-Term Care Facilities
-
April 11, 2016
| Crystal Bloom
DPH Strengthens Oversight of Long-Term Care Facilities
-
March 23, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Andrew Ferrer
Governor Baker Signs Legislation Designed To Address Opioid Crisis
-
March 23, 2016
| Kelly McGee
Phase 2 HIPAA Compliance Audits Set To Begin
-
March 22, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Failure to execute HIPAA business associate agreement and conduct risk analysis costs health system $1.55M
-
February 11, 2016
| Kelly McGee
Proposed Rule Modifies 42 CFR Part 2, the Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records Regulations
-
November 16, 2015
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Nicole Sexton
Medicare Hospital Reimbursement Changes
-
October 26, 2015
Diane Moes named one of Mass Lawyers Weekly’s “Top Women of Law”
-
June 12, 2015
OIG Fraud Alert Warns Doctors That They Will Be Personally Accountable for Violations of Federal Anti-Kickback Statute
-
May 15, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Long Term Care Facility Regulatory Update
-
April 23, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Department of Public Health - new process for the addition of licensed mobile or portable health care units
-
April 21, 2015
| Paul Barrett, Jeffrey Chase-Lubitz
OIG Releases Compliance And Oversight Guide for Healthcare Boards
-
April 20, 2015
| Andrew Levine,
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Revamps Application Process for Registered Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
-
April 16, 2015
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
Proposed Legislation Will Increase Legal Authority of Health Policy Commission and Attorney General
-
March 15, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Health Policy Commission Releases Proposed Regulation Concerning Nurse-to-Patient Ratios | Public hearings scheduled for late March and early April
-
March 06, 2015
| Robert Blaisdell
Court Holds Officers and Directors of Non-Profit Healthcare Facility Personally Liable to Creditors for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-
September 17, 2014
| Andrew Levine, Robert Blaisdell, Kathleen Harrell
Legal Issues Associated with MA Registered Marijuana Dispensaries: An article by Andrew Levine, Robert Blaisdell, and Kathleen Harrell
-
July 14, 2014
| Andrew Levine
Important Compounding Pharmacy Law Empowers Board of Registration in Pharmacy
-
June 20, 2014
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
Public Health Council Approves Amendments to Determination of Need Regulations
-
June 03, 2014
| Diane Moes
U.S. District Court Ruling Vacating HRSA’s 340B Program Orphan Drug Exclusion Rule Casts Uncertainty on Forthcoming "Mega-Rule"
-
May 28, 2014
| Andrew Levine
New Guidelines for Dementia Special Care Unit Regulations
-
January 10, 2014
| Andrew Levine
MassHealth Changes regulations to comply with Affordable Care Act
Litigation
-
August 27, 2020
Best Lawyers in America® 2021 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
May 12, 2020
First Federal Indictment Arising Out of Fraudulent Applications for Paycheck Protection Program Loans Highlights Focus on COVID-19 Related Investigations
-
April 30, 2020
Impact of COVID-19 on Reporting Foreign Components
-
August 27, 2019
Best Lawyers in America® 2020 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
October 22, 2018
Super Lawyers® Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
August 15, 2018
Best Lawyers in America® recognizes Summit Health Law Partners attorneys for their excellence in law.
-
April 05, 2018
In Russia probe, the difference between ‘target’ and ‘subject’ matters a great deal
-
February 22, 2018
Landmark Supreme Court Decision Substantially Narrows the Applicability of the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provision
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
July 20, 2017
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that terminating an employee for using medical marijuana may constitute handicap discrimination.
-
August 31, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Massachusetts Enacts Equal Pay Act: What employers can do now to prepare for its implementation
-
August 12, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell
CMS cracks down on “abuse” of nursing home residents via social media
-
June 28, 2016
3 Things Every Massachusetts Podiatrist Should Know About the Proposed Amendments to Podiatry Regulations
-
June 01, 2016
How Recent Changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “White Collar” Exemptions May Affect Your Small Business
-
March 25, 2015
Avoiding Securities Fraud Prosecution: Using the SEC’s 2015 examination priorities as a compliance roadmap when dealing with retail investors.
-
December 29, 2014
| Bruce Singal
Was the Ferguson grand jury rigged?
-
March 26, 2014
Employer Avoids Discrimination Trial Thanks to Robust Investigation and Documentation Policies
-
February 13, 2014
| Michelle Peirce
Shielding Companies Against Whistleblower Suits
-
March 01, 2010
Trials Facing Women Litigators and Tips For Success: Michelle Peirce
-
“Official Immunity” for Private Research Institutions: How a recent federal court decision impacts civil tort lawsuits arising out of research misconduct inquiries / investigations.
-
Research Misconduct Penalties and How to Avoid Them
Corporate
-
August 20, 2018
| Robert Blaisdell
Governor Baker Signs Sweeping Reform on Employee non-Competition Agreements Law
-
March 16, 2018
Massachusetts Equal Pay Act: 5 Things Every Employer Should Do Before It Takes Effect On July 1, 2018
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
June 28, 2016
Massachusetts Trial Court Dismisses Wrongful Employment Termination Claim Based on Medical Marijuana Use
-
June 28, 2016
3 Things Every Massachusetts Podiatrist Should Know About the Proposed Amendments to Podiatry Regulations
Research Misconduct
-
May 18, 2020
Why Grantees Must be Prepared for Heightened Scrutiny of Conflicts of Interest in Foreign Support for US Research
-
March 23, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Andrew Ferrer
Governor Baker Signs Legislation Designed To Address Opioid Crisis
-
What is Research Misconduct and Why Should I Care?
-
“Official Immunity” for Private Research Institutions: How a recent federal court decision impacts civil tort lawsuits arising out of research misconduct inquiries / investigations.
-
Research Misconduct Penalties and How to Avoid Them
This website presents general information about Summit Health Law Partners and is not intended as legal advice nor should you consider it as such. You should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
Please note that contacting Summit Health Law Partners by email, telephone or facsimile will not establish an attorney-client relationship, obligate us to act as your attorney or impose an obligation on either the law firm or the receiving lawyer to keep the transmitted information confidential. Completion of Summit Health Law Partners' new client intake protocol, including without limitation the firm’s conflicts checking process and an engagement letter, is necessary to establish an attorney-client relationship. Absent a current attorney-client relationship with Summit Health Law Partners, any information or documents communicated or transmitted by you to Summit Health Law Partners will not be treated as confidential, secret or protected in any way. If you are not a current client of Summit Health Law Partners, please do not send any confidential information to us through this website or otherwise concerning any potential or actual legal matter you have. Before providing any confidential information to us, you must obtain permission to do so from one of the firm’s lawyers. By clicking "Accept," you acknowledge that we have no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us unless we already represent you or unless we have agreed to receive limited confidential material/information from you as a prospective client.
If you would like to discuss becoming a client, please contact one of our attorneys to arrange for a meeting or telephone conference. If you wish to disclose confidential information to a lawyer in the firm before an attorney-client relationship is established, the protections that the law firm will provide to such information from a prospective client should be discussed with the firm attorney before such information is submitted. Thank you for your interest in Summit Health Law Partners.