Health Care

Leading up to a webinar on July 15, 2020, we are publishing a blog series covering the risks of enforcement against companies that received COVID-19 relief funds under the CARES Act and strategies for mitigating those risks.  This third, and final, installment of our series discusses emerging and anticipated criminal enforcement involving COVID-19 relief programs.

On June 26, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued Advisory Opinion No. 20-03 approving the payment by a discount medical plan organization (DMPO) of a five dollar ($5.00) fee to chiropractors for the referral of new members to the DMPO.  OIG determined that even though the arrangement could result in prohibited remuneration, it would not impose administrative sanctions or civil monetary penalties for violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). 

Leading up to a webinar on July 15, 2020, we are publishing a blog series covering the risks of enforcement against companies that received COVID-19 relief funds under the CARES Act and strategies for mitigating these risks.  This second installment of our series discusses our predictions related to litigation and enforcement activities. We expect a substantial number of False Claims Act (“FCA”) investigations and lawsuits initiated mainly by whistleblowers (also known as “relators”). The FCA remains the government’s primary enforcement tool for pursuing alleged fraud by recipients of government funds, and FCA claims present substantial risk because the statute permits treble damages and significant per-claim penalties. For example, an erroneous $100,000 loan under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) can result in $300,000 in FCA damages, or more.

Last Thursday, the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine (BORIM) approved its first permanent telehealth policy. The Board had previously approved this policy on an “interim” basis in response to the COVID-19 pandemic on March 16, 2020. This policy is an important step for the Massachusetts BORIM as it had previously hesitated to provide any formal guidance on the practice of telehealth.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken another step to further the adoption of value-based purchasing within the health care industry. (Readers may recall the Department of Health & Human Services’ two proposed rules – one from CMS and another from the Office of Inspector General – issued late last year, aimed at reducing barriers to value-based arrangements, which we discussed here.) CMS released its new proposed rule to “support state flexibility to enter into innovative value-based purchasing arrangements (VBPs) with manufacturers, and to provide manufacturers with regulatory support to enter into VBPs with payers, including Medicaid.”

Last Friday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced another increase to civil monetary penalties assessed under the False Claims Act (FCA), among other statutes. DOJ made these adjustments to account for inflation, in accordance with the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, and they apply to penalties assessed after June 19, 2020, for violations occurring after November 2, 2015.

Last week, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (“Senate HELP”) held a hearing entitled “Telehealth: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic," during which the Committee members expressed support for permanently expanding access to telehealth services. In this blog post, we discuss the Committee's proposals and the additional steps needed to permanently expand access to telehealth.

As we discussed in our last update on the Food and Drug Administration’s Comprehensive Regenerative Medicine Policy Framework back in December 2019 (during the much simpler, pre-COVID-19 world), this coming November will conclude the three-year period of enforcement discretion announced by the agency when it first articulated the policies and goals of this “comprehensive framework.” In particular, under the dual-track program announced in 2017, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been focused on: (1) clarifying the regulatory criteria for product marketing through guidance and providing support to legitimate product developers through formal and informal interactions; and (2) removing unapproved, unproven, and potentially unsafe products from the U.S. market.

Since the early days of the pandemic, Mintz’s COVID-19 Compliance & Enforcement Defense Task Force has closely monitored and advised clients on the evolving COVID-19 relief programs, including those created by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The CARES Act provided for over $2 trillion in relief funds, which is the largest emergency assistance package in American history. The numerous CARES Act programs have continued to develop through, among other things, the passage of the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020, and rapidly changing regulatory guidance and FAQs. As one example, the government recently wrestled with whether to make public the list of about 4.6 million entities that received more than $500 billion from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) under the CARES Act. After initially refusing to disclose PPP loan recipients, the Small Business Administration and Treasury Department decided to make public the names of entities that received loans larger than $150,000, as well as the dollar range of each loan.

A panel of federal appellate judges has sided with drugmakers by upholding a lower court ruling from 2019 that struck down a regulation proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In a closely watched case, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision on June 16, 2020 affirming the district court’s judgement that vacated the HHS Drug Pricing Disclosure Rule. This ruling is yet another example of a court invalidating the Drug Pricing Disclosure Rule, which sought to require drugmakers’ television advertisements to disclose the list prices of their prescription drug products.

Late last week, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued guidance aimed at “making sure misconceptions about HIPAA do not get in the way of a promising COVID-19 response,” according to OCR Director Roger Severino. That “promising response” relates to emerging evidence that plasma from recovered patients (often referred to as “convalescent plasma”) may contain antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Those antibodies could be useful in treating individuals who are sick with COVID-19. The OCR’s guidance addresses how health care providers may contact, in a HIPAA-compliant manner, recovered COVID-19 patients to provide them with information about donating blood and plasma to potentially help other COVID-19 patients.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced its first criminal securities fraud prosecution related to COVID-19, and it involves health care fraud as well. Mark Schena, president of Arrayit Corporation, a publicly traded medical technology company, faces criminal charges in connection with false and fraudulent claims submitted for allergy and COVID-19 testing. The complaint charges Schena with one count of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. From 2018 to present, Arrayit, under Schena’s direction, allegedly submitted or caused the submission of over $5.9 million in Medicare claims and over $63 million in private insurance claims for allergy and COVID-19 tests that were not medically necessary, were not provided as claimed, or were tainted by the payment of kickbacks and bribes.

In an interview yesterday, CMS administrator Seema Verma expressed support for permanently expanding access to telehealth services after the COVID-19 public health emergency resolves. Here, we explore the nature and duration of the temporary executive and regulatory orders, emergency legislation, and sub-regulatory guidance, which have resulted greater access to telehealth while leaving a fair amount of uncertainty as to what the future of telehealth looks like.

On March 27, 2020, the President signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which in part describes reforms to modernize the regulatory framework for over-the-counter (OTC) monograph drugs. We previously blogged about the surprise addition of the OTC monograph reforms within the CARES Act. On May 29, 2020, the Office of Nonprescription Drugs within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a webinar titled “Monograph Reform is Here!” (a recording of the webinar is available here), which included key highlights from the OTC monograph reform.

On May 29th, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) submitted a comment to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in support of reducing reimbursement requirements for telehealth services. CMS accepted public comments for its new Interim Final Rule published on April 6, 2020, 85 FR 19230, which changes the Medicare payment regulations to allow for more flexible Medicare service options in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to supporting CMS’s new Interim Final Rule, FTC’s comment recommends permanent measures and further steps to take. The comment offers a valuable insight into the Commission’s stance on telemedicine in relation to health care competition.

We have been blogging about the various actions that numerous government agencies were taking to combat COVID-19 fraud (see here and here). These agencies and their respective law enforcement efforts have yet to slow down and appear to have accelerated as greater coordination begins to take root. As of May 29, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued 64 warning letters to companies making claims about a product alleged to be a COVID cure, treatment, or preventative product, while the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had issued many, many more than that. In some cases, these warning letters are joint letters that come from both government agencies, which is never a good sign. The FTC in particular is making announcements on a regular basis about large batches of warning letters being issued, such as this one from May 21 highlighting that 50 more marketers of fraudulent COVID-19 products had received such a missive from the FTC. 

This article outlines Treasury Department and IRS tax relief available to individuals and businesses affected by travel disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

As the COVID-19 public health crisis continues, it is sometimes easy to forget what issues were at the forefront of our national conversation before the pandemic. It was mere months ago when Congress appeared to be edging closer to a deal on legislation addressing drug pricing. While the focus on drug pricing issues may have shifted of late, the American public’s access to drugs—and, more recently, vaccines—remains a critical public health issue, perhaps now more than ever. As Congress works feverishly to pass legislation to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 crisis, it remains to be seen what will come of the various drug pricing proposals that were being debated earlier this session. For now, it looks like any legislative action to enhance patients’ access to drug therapies will likely come through a coronavirus-related stimulus bill, such as the one introduced by the House of Representatives last week.

This article discusses the recent revisions to the Federal Reserve’s Main Street Lending Program; borrower considerations regarding eligibility and access to the program; implications of certain covenants and restrictions; and considerations under existing debt documents.

In an effort to address the need to increase the availability of COVID-19 testing, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued guidance notifying pharmacies and other Medicare-enrolled suppliers that they may temporarily enroll as independent clinical diagnostic laboratories during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) so that they may bill Medicare for COVID-19 testing.