Health Care Enforcement & Investigations

This July, we detailed the Supreme Court’s surprising revival in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Resources, No. 21-1052 (S. Ct. June. 16, 2023), of the question of whether the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), see 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), violate the Executive Branch’s exclusive grant of authority under Article II of the United States Constitution. In Polansky, a lengthy dissent by Justice Thomas questioned whether the False Claims Act qui tam provisions violated the Appointments Clause and Take Care Clause of Article II of the United States Constitution, arguments that had been endorsed by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in the 1989, though ultimately repudiated by DOJ just seven years later. A concurrence by Justice Kavanagh, joined by Justice Barrett, stated that “the Court should consider the competing arguments on the Article II issue in an appropriate case.” Shortly after Polansky was decided, a defendant in a declined qui tam case pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama accepted Justice Kavanagh’s invitation, and moved to dismiss on Article II grounds. In a decision entered in November, the District Court rejected that challenge.

In coordination with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) proposed a much-anticipated framework to establish and manage “appropriate disincentives” for health care providers under the Information Blocking Rules. As described in more detail in the blog post, the proposed rule (Appropriate Disincentives Proposed Rule) includes proposed disincentives for (i) hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAHs) participating in the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program; health care providers eligible for Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) adjustments; and health care providers participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP).

A recent Massachusetts Federal District Court decision adds to divergent opinions deciding an important health care enforcement question: what causation standard applies to a False Claims Act (FCA) case based on a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS)? The AKS states that a claim that includes items or services “resulting from” a violation of the AKS constitutes a “false or fraudulent claim” under the FCA. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(g). On September 27, 2023, Chief Judge Saylor of the District of Massachusetts issued a decision in United States v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., C.A No. 20-11217-FDS, which adopted a “but-for” standard of causation applicable to the AKS’s “resulting from” language.

On August 15, 2023, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) issued a negative Advisory Opinion regarding a turnkey physician-owned entity (Newco) operated by an existing provider of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) services. In reaching its determination, the OIG stated that Newco and its arrangements with the IONM Company would present a significant risk under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) primarily because it exhibits many indicia of a suspect contractual joint venture.

A little over a year after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to be at the forefront of addressing reproductive health concerns. An example of this activity came just a few days after the FDA approved the first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive for marketing in the U.S. when the agency sent a warning letter to Wise Women’s Choice (WISE) in connection with the marketing and sale of its “birth control cream.” Among other things, this warning letter highlights for consumers the importance of confirming that birth control methods are safe, effective, and FDA-approved for their intended uses.

Do the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA), see 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), violate the Executive Branch’s exclusive grant of authority under Article II of the United States Constitution? This long-dormant question has been revived in a surprising context. In its recent decision in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Resources, No. 21-1052 (S. Ct. June. 16, 2023), the Supreme Court affirmed the government’s authority to intervene to dismiss a whistleblower action, even after initially declining to intervene in the case. Knowledgeable FCA practitioners expected this result. Less expected was Justice Thomas’s dissent, which argued that the case should have been remanded to allow the parties to brief and argue whether Article II forbids allowing private citizens to maintain FCA claims on behalf of the government. A concurrence by Justice Kavanagh (joined by Justice Barrett), while rejecting Justice Thomas’s call for a remand, nonetheless stated that “the Court should consider the competing arguments on the Article II issue in an appropriate case.” With three justices expressing interest in this question—and only four justices being required to grant certiorari—health care enforcement defense attorneys should now consider whether to raise the constitutionality of the FCA’s qui tam provisions when relators move forward to litigate cases that the government declines to pursue.

Though there has been much speculation and commentary among industry stakeholders, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) have not yet begun enforcing statutory penalties associated with violations of the Information Blocking Rules. On July 3, 2023, OIG and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) took a significant step toward enforcement of these penalties when they published long-awaited civil monetary penalty (CMP) final rule (CMP Final Rule) for certain Information Blocking Actors in the Federal Register.

In a resounding unanimous 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a defendant’s subjective belief is irrelevant under the False Claims Act (FCA) when evaluating whether a defendant “knowingly” submitted a false claim to the government for payment. On June 1, 2023, the Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in the consolidated cases U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc. and U.S. ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc. (SuperValu) and addressed the question of whether a defendant is liable under the FCA if its conduct is consistent with an “objectively reasonable” interpretation of ambiguous statutory or regulatory language. Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, held that an “objectively reasonable” interpretation does not provide a complete legal defense to liability under the FCA. Rather, a defendant meets the FCA’s intent (scienter) requirement if the defendant’s subjective beliefs indicate it had knowledge that its submission of claims was “false or fraudulent,” regardless of whether the defendant’s conduct could be supported by a later “objectively reasonable” interpretation of the ambiguous legal or regulatory issue. Further, the Court articulated new standards for what might constitute “deliberate ignorance” or “reckless disregard” under the “knowledge” prong of the FCA.

In this episode, Health Care Enforcement Defense specialists Eoin Beirne, Karen Lovitch, and Brian Dunphy discuss key regulatory and policy updates issued by the DOJ and their potential impact on False Claims Act cases, from self-disclosure to privacy regulations.

Bridgette Keller speaks with Karen Lovitch, Brian Dunphy, and Eoin Beirne about the Mintz Health Care Enforcement Defense Practice’s recent edition of the EnforceMintz newsletter, Analyzing Health Care False Claims Act Cases, and key health care enforcement trends.

Mintz's Health Care Enforcement group analyzes trends in False Claims Act (FCA) investigations and lawsuits using data compiled its Qui Tam Database, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) annual report of FCA statistics, and the DOJ’s discussion of FCA enforcement trends.

The vast majority of False Claims Act recoveries in fiscal year 2022 came from health care–related cases, and new case filings remained high, despite an ongoing decline in health care FCA case volume. Mintz’s Health Care Enforcement Defense team explores FCA litigation trends using annual DOJ statistics and activity tracked in our database of health care whistleblower cases.