A recent whistleblower case decision has revealed how federal prosecutors going after providers for fraud have been frustrated by the murkiness of federal regulations.
United States Ex Rel. Deborah Sheldon v. Allergan Sales, LLC is in many ways a typical whistleblower qui tam case. It involves allegations against Allergan, formerly Forest Laboratories, and its corporate compliance with complex, inscrutable Medicaid pricing and rebate regulations. Despite the superficial banality of the case, it raises some important considerations.
This case furthers the circuit court split regarding key concepts in False Claims Act (FCA) litigation. In the decision, the majority cites the legal experts of Calvin and Hobbes, noting that “people have asked how to play Calvinball. It’s pretty simple: you make up the rules as you go.”
That quote is one of the best parts of this decision from a divided three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes the frustrations inherent in dealing with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) regulations. I expect this decision to be appealed due to the inter-circuit disparities – and the $680 million on the line. But for now, this decision is the law in the Fourth Circuit.
The case turns on the defendant’s knowledge of falsity.
As a quick review, the FCA imposes liability on anyone who “knowingly” makes or uses a false or fraudulent claim. The statute defines knowingly as:
This knowledge is referred to as “scienter” in legal-speak. If someone lacks any of the legal knowledge requirements, fraud cannot be proved. It is this knowledge requirement that largely defines the outcome of this case.
It’s worth recalling that liability under the FCA requires no proof of intent to defraud.
As with most things in law, we also must consider two types of falsity: legal and factual. The straightforward case is factual falsity; this occurs when a false statement of a fact is made, such as saying that 100 items were sold when the actual sale was 50. In contrast, legal falsity arises when the claim is factually correct, but compliance with underlying statutes, regulations, or contract terms is knowingly misrepresented. The Sheldon case (and many others) relate to legal falsity. This is because following the guidance imposed by statutes or regulations may not be as straightforward as we’d like.
The majority opinion in the case dispenses with the case by concluding that the defendant did not act knowingly, so it need not address the falsity question. So why, you might ask, did the court conclude that the defendant did not act knowingly?
This is where things get murky. The three-judge panel disagrees based on potentially flawed logic and misapplication of legal precedent. But there are some transcendent messages we can glean from the judges’ dispute.
The clear message is that if the law or regulation is ambiguous, then under some circumstances, fraud may not even be possible. The court is divided over where the “ambiguity line” might be drawn. To take advantage of an ambiguity defense, you will probably need the following:
The bottom line is this: be sure to exhaustively research available guidance. Use the most conservative guidance available, and make sure your conclusions are objectively and subjectively realistic.
Read the decision in its entirety here.
Other useful references:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/civil/legacy/2011/04/22/C-FRAUDS_FCA_Primer.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud
https://www.weil.com/~/media/files/pdfs/understanding-the-false-claims-act-(75611346).pdf
In recent weeks, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has been incredibly active in releasing a slew of updates that aim to extend
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following op-ed is exclusively comprised of the opinions of the individual author, which are not necessarily shared by RACmonitor or Monitor Mondays.
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
The CMS Two-Midnight Rule and short-stay audits are here to stay, impacting inpatient and outpatient admissions, ASC procedures, and Medicare Parts C & D. New for 2024, the Two-Midnight Rule applies to Medicare Advantage patients, requiring differentiation between Medicare plans affecting Case Managers, Utilization Review, and operational processes and knowledge of a vital distinction between these patients that influences post-discharge medical reviews and compliance risk. Join Michael G. Calahan for a comprehensive webcast covering federal laws for all admission processes. Gain the knowledge needed to navigate audits effectively and optimize patient access points, personnel, and compliance strategies. Learn Two-Midnight Rule essentials, Medicare Advantage implications, and compliance best practices. Discover operational insights for short-stay admissions, outpatient observation, and the ever-changing Inpatient-Only Listing.
A massive task lies ahead! Now’s the time to start preparing your case management and utilization review teams for successful implementation of changes contained in the 2024 IPPS, OPPS and MPFS rules.
Gain clarity on billing, patient notifications, and discharge appeal rights in social admissions. Join our webcast for essential insights and strategies to navigate this complex landscape, ensuring financial stability and optimal patient care.
Dr. Ronald Hirsch provides tried-and-true strategies and insight into outpatient in hospital bed stays including determining the applicable definition, who uses it, and when and how to bill for this circumstance, solidified with concrete case examples and expert insight.
Explore comprehensive guidelines and best practices for secondary diagnosis coding in our illuminating webcast. Delve into the intricacies of accurately assigning secondary diagnosis codes to ensure precise medical documentation. Learn how to navigate complex scenarios and adhere to coding regulations while enhancing coding proficiency. Our expert-led webcast covers essential insights, including documentation requirements, sequencing strategies, and industry updates. Elevate your coding skills and stay current with the latest coding advancements so you can determine the correct DRG assignment to optimize reimbursement, support medical decision-making, and maintain compliance.
Enhance your inpatient coding precision and revenue with Principal Diagnosis Coding: Mastering Selection and Sequencing. Join our expert-led webcast to conquer the challenges of principal diagnosis selection and sequencing. We’ll decode the intricacies of ICD-10-CM guidelines, equipping you with a clear grasp of the rules and the official UHDDS principal diagnosis definition. Uncover the crucial role of coding conventions, master the sequencing of related conditions, and confidently tackle cases with equally valid principal diagnoses.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY24 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, plus insights, analysis and answers to questions from the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
This third session in our 2024 IPPS Summit will feature a review of FY24 changes to the MS-DRG methodology and new technology add-on payments (NTAPs), presented by senior healthcare consultant Laurie Johnson, with bonus insights and analysis from two acclaimed subject matter experts
Copyright © 2023 RACmonitor. Powered by MedLearn Media.
