Stark and Anti-Kickback Issues Expected to Increase for Laboratories in 2015
Health care experts and attorneys predict 2015 will be a significant year for Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigations of physician self-referral (Stark) and Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) violations. The primary drivers of these cases are the significant False Claims Act and Civil Monetary Penalty awards that can be achieved by the […]
Health care experts and attorneys predict 2015 will be a significant year for Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigations of physician self-referral (Stark) and Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) violations. The primary drivers of these cases are the significant False Claims Act and Civil Monetary Penalty awards that can be achieved by the government either in court or at the settlement table. Recently, private health insurance giants Aetna and Cigna have entered the fray by filing lawsuits against some laboratories claiming Stark and AKS violations, seeking the return of millions of dollars in alleged overpayments. The lawsuits assert overpayments were caused by referrals that were allegedly induced though kickbacks in the form of bribes or sham agreements. Experts also expect Medicaid and Medicare managed care organizations will join the party. Aetna Health Inc. and Aetna Life Insurance Co. recently filed a civil complaint in New Jersey’s Camden County Superior Court against Biodiagnostic Laboratory Services, three of its owners, and several physicians. As we have reported here in G2 Compliance Advisor and other G2 publications, various individuals have admitted in guilty pleas that they received bribes in exchange for referring specimens to the lab and ordering unnecessary tests. In fact, the Department of Justice just announced as we went to press a 36th guilty plea relating to this case. In another case, Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc.. is being sued by Cigna Health and Life Insurance for $84 million. HDL is under a federal investigation for allegedly paying physicians to refer tests via specimen handling and collection fees. In Cigna’s suit, HDL is accused of “gaming the healthcare system by submitting grossly inflated, phantom ‘charges’ to Cigna that do not reflect the actual amount HDL bills patients.” The media has also entered the arena. Fed by a massive release of Medicare claims data by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) last April, the Wall Street Journal has reported front page stories about seemingly outrageous payments to physicians and others. Laboratories have numerous interactions with physicians who refer tests to them. Many of these interactions have both Stark and AKS implications. Laboratories and other providers are at a significantly greater risk today than ever before for legal problems related to a Stark and AKS violation, and the false claims that can stem from such violations. Laboratories Can Defend Themselves Laboratories have complicated relationships with their referral sources that have Stark and AKS implications. The relationships with the laboratory’s referral sources are chiefly the domain of the sales and marketing departments and business development. The medical director and other technical laboratory staff may be involved but the efforts are most often driven by sales and marketing. Compliance officers need to monitor these relationships. The laboratory risk areas related to Stark and AKS include:
- Lease or rental of space from a physician or other entity;
- Lease or rental of equipment from a physician, particularly if the physician uses the equipment to provide a service for which they receive a financial benefit or direct payment;
- Providing computers, printers, or fax machines in a physician office or paying for an interface for that equipment;
- Placing employees to perform phlebotomy services in a physician office;
- Contracting for a professional or personal service with a physician;
- Providing certain supplies for free to physicians offices or other referral sources;
- Providing education and training for physicians or other referral sources if the education is not regarding compliance or regulatory information, particularly if the education benefits the physician in some way;
- Providing nonmonetary gifts or items of value to a physician;
- Providing electronic test results or interfaces for the physician’s electronic health record .
- Written policies and procedures that cover each of the risk areas discussed in this article are necessary and should be in plain language and sufficient detail to avoid misunderstandings.
- All employees who are authorized to discuss or negotiate the types of arrangements discussed above, and all supervisor and executive-level employees, should be thoroughly trained on the laws and regulations specifically as they apply to the laboratory.
- All arrangements in which payment is made to a physician or referral source must have a written agreement that meets the requirements of the Stark law or the AKS and must be evaluated against an objective measure to determine fair market value.
- Monetary payments to a physician or referral source must be approved by the compliance officer or an officer of the company other than the individual responsible for the arrangement or relationship.
- The laboratory must have a system in place to track the amount of nonmonetary compensation spent on physicians for gifts and entertainment.
- When a question arises concerning these laws and regulations, the compliance officer should provide a written response to ensure there is no misunderstanding. If the compliance officer is not sure how to answer the question, he or she should seek competent consulting or legal advice before answering.
- The laboratory must set up a system of audits and monitors specifically for the laboratory's relationships with its referral sources.
Subscribe to view Essential
Start a Free Trial for immediate access to this article