healthcare litigation – Duane Morris Health Law

August 8, 2024 by Seth A. Goldberg

Health Insurance Reimbursement Price-Fixing MDL Formed

I recently reported that Multiplan and certain insurers in its network were accused of being a “cartel” that has agreed to underprice out-of-network reimbursement paid to providers in the Multiplan network in violation of federal antitrust laws. in the matter styled Live Well Chiropractic PLLC, et al. v. Multiplan, Inc., et al., (D. IL Civ. No. 1:24-cv–3680). That antitrust action, along with six other similar actions, were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings by the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation (JPML) into a multi-district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois before The Honorable Matthew Kennelly. See JPML Transfer Order.

While defendants in certain of the actions sought transfer of the MDL to the Northern District of California, and others hoped transfer would not occur until a motion to dismiss in an action in New York District Ct. was heard, the JPML ruled that ” the Northern District of Illinois is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation” because “six actions are pending in that district, which has the support of both some plaintiffs and all defendants. Two defendants are headquartered in Illinois, and several others are located nearby. Judge Matthew F. Kennelly is well-versed in the nuances of complex and multidistrict litigation, and we are confident he will steer this litigation on a prudent course.”

The price-fixing claims assert that Multiplan uses an algorithm that Multiplan claims “reprices” OON services based on historical reimbursements to providers providing the same services, and then “overrides” that amount to pay lower rates agreed upon by Multiplan and the insurers. The insurers, who are allegedly horizontal competitors, are claimed to provide competitively sensitive information about their reimbursement that they would not provide in a competitive market, and many serve on a Multiplan advisory board that meets in furtherance of the conspiracy to fix prices.

July 31, 2024July 31, 2024 by Seth A. Goldberg

Another Stark Law Action

I recently wrote about what appears to be a surge in Stark Law enforcement by the DOJ, and just days later the DOJ announced another Stark Law enforcement action. The Stark Law, or Physician Self-Referral Law, 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn, which is a strict liability statute that prohibits physicians from referring patients to an entity for “designated health services,” such as inpatient hospital, laboratory, or radiology services, in which the physician has a financial relationship, such as an ownership interest or compensation arrangements where the remuneration exceeds fair market value.

On July 26, 2024, the DOJ filed a Complaint against Murphy Medical Center, Inc. doing business as Erlanger Western Carolina Hospital and Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority doing business as Erlanger Health System and Erlanger Medical Center (collectively, Erlanger) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, alleging that Erlanger violated the Stark Law and thereby violated the False Claims Act, which permits the government to recover treble damages, among other relied.

The Complaint alleges, based on information provided by two qui tam relators, or whistleblowers, who worked for Erlanger as Chief Compliance Officer and Chief Financial Officer, that Erlanger developed a strategy to drive business to it by knowingly paying physicians large salaries and bonuses without regard to whether work was actually performed. Consequently, the Complaint alleges, Erlanger was paying more than fair market value in violation of the Stark Law. The Complaint notes instances where Erlanger should have been on notice of the disproportionate payment, but lacked or ignored internal controls and warning signs that could have resulted in a correction. The Complaint also notes that Erlanger had previously settled DOJ claims of Stark Law violations, agreeing to pay $40 million in 2005.

The Complaint provides specific examples of services provided by ten physicians who were compensated by Erlanger in amounts exceeding fair market value. Because those services, among others, billed to Medicare allegedly violated the Stark Law, the government asserted claims against Erlanger under the False Claims Act and for common law unjust enrichment and payment by mistake. The DOJ seeks damages against Erlanger of approximately $27.8 million.

The Erlanger action and the others I previously wrote about should remind hospitals and health systems to be vigilant about physician compensation structures, as the fair market value assessment may result in subtle disparities that nonetheless raise the specter of Stark Law violations. This is an area of compliance to be particularly mindful about.

October 5, 2015 by Elinor H. Murarova

Recent Trends In FCA Litigation Against Hospice Care Providers

The Office of Inspector General identified “reducing waste in . . . hospice care” as one of the “top management challenges” for the 2015 fiscal year. The federal government’s efforts to respond to that challenge are illustrated by several recent developments in False Claims Act (“FCA“) cases brought against hospice care providers. For example, the Robinson-Hill, Betts, and Gooch cases discussed herein underscore the attention given to hospice care providers and their alleged billing and personnel-related practices, and the high monetary settlements that can result from such attention.

Continue reading “Recent Trends In FCA Litigation Against Hospice Care Providers”

August 21, 2015 by Elinor H. Murarova

Seventh Circuit Finds Hospital Not A “Credit Reporting Agency”

In Tierney v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp., the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA“) complaint and found that a hospital was not a “credit reporting agency” under the FCRA. Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Finds Hospital Not A “Credit Reporting Agency””

June 30, 2015 by Philip H. Lebowitz

“Per-click” fees OK but don’t count on it

The Stark Law, 42 U.S.C. 1395nn, places restrictions on lease arrangements between physician groups and hospitals for equipment owned by the physicians, leased to the hospitals and then used by the same physicians to treat patients at the hospital. Under the Stark Law, such leases are prohibited unless the arrangement complies with the equipment rental exception, 42 U.S.C. 1395nn(e)(1)(B).

One requirement of the equipment rental exception, which is both statutory and regulatory (42 C.F.R. 411.357(b)), is that the rental charges be “set in advance.” In a recent case from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Council for Urological Interests v. Burwell, the court considered whether a “per-click” or “per-use” fee could be considered “set in advance” and otherwise meet the criteria for the exception. In an oddly constructed opinion, the court struck down a regulatory prohibition on per-click arrangements, but remanded under terms that would permit the restriction to be re-instated. Continue reading ““Per-click” fees OK but don’t count on it”

June 1, 2015 by Elinor H. Murarova

Gov’t and IPC Continue FCA Fight In Court

The Government and IPC The Hospitalist Company, Inc. (“IPC”) continue their False Claims Act (“FCA“) fight in court, now disputing the scope of discovery in light of the Northern District of Illinois’ partial denial of IPC’s motion to dismiss (detailed by Duane Morris here). The Government has moved to strike certain of IPC’s general objections to discovery: (1) IPC’s objection to producing documents from IPC’s nationwide operations and (2) IPC’s objection to producing documents dated after December 31, 2010 (“Motion“).

Continue reading “Gov’t and IPC Continue FCA Fight In Court”

April 6, 2015 by Philip H. Lebowitz

On-call coverage contracts are OK

An orthopedic surgeon agreed on two separate occasions to an on-call coverage contract with a local hospital in which he warranted that no portion of his compensation was in exchange for referrals. When the contracts were terminated by the hospital after the surgeon invested in a competing surgery center, the surgeon brought a whistleblower False Claims Act action against the hospital, alleging that the contract was intended to induce his referrals.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in Cooper v. Pottstown Hospital Co., LLC, et al., dismissed the surgeon’s complaint. The district court’s description of the failure of the complaint illustrates the characteristics of on-call contracts that make them a permissible relationship between hospitals and physicians. Continue reading “On-call coverage contracts are OK”

March 29, 2015 by Elinor H. Murarova

Certain FCA Defendants Dismissed; “Lumping” Defendants Together Is Not Enough To State An FCA Claim

A district court in the Northern District of Illinois recently partially granted a motion to dismiss the Government’s False Claims Act (“FCA”) complaint filed against IPC The Hospitalist Company, Inc. (“IPC”) and its subsidiaries and affiliates. The district court dismissed IPC’s subsidiaries and affiliates because the Government simply “lumped” those subsidiaries and affiliates in with IPC, and did not plead facts tying the subsidiaries and affiliates to the alleged fraud. The decision underscores an important defense available to FCA defendants, and highlights the nuanced pleading requirements that the Government must meet in an FCA case. Continue reading “Certain FCA Defendants Dismissed; “Lumping” Defendants Together Is Not Enough To State An FCA Claim”

January 12, 2015January 12, 2015 by Elinor H. Murarova

Mayo Lawsuit Against Former Exec Raises Numerous Health Care and Business Litigation Issues

A recent settlement between Mayo Collaborative Services d/b/a Mayo Medical Laboratories (“MML”) and Mayo Clinic (together with MML, “Mayo”) and a former Mayo executive, Dr. Franklin Cockerill, reveals the potential legal issues that may arise when health care executives seek new employment and the high stakes litigation that may ensue-regardless of which party may or may not be at fault.

As set forth in Mayo’s complaint, Dr. Cockerill was a former senior officer and director of MML and Chair of the Mayo Clinic Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, where he managed several thousand medical professionals handling laboratory testing and intellectual property development for Mayo and MML. According to Mayo’s complaint, as a result of Dr. Cockerill’s various positions he had first-hand knowledge of confidential strategic, business, marketing, sales, pricing, and data management information from MML and Mayo. Eventually, Dr. Cockerill retired and obtained employment with a Mayo competitor.

Continue reading “Mayo Lawsuit Against Former Exec Raises Numerous Health Care and Business Litigation Issues”