Dorsey Health Law

With the enactment of the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act (“EKRA”) in 2018, the permissibility of commission-based compensation to laboratory sales representatives based on volume, revenue, or profit has come under question, and there is still little case law interpreting the Act. Despite EKRA being a relatively newer law, laboratories should remain mindful of how the more established Anti-Kickback Statute (the “AKS”) impacts the permissibility of such commission-based compensation as well. Under current law, commission-based payments (including commission based on volume, revenue, profit, etc.) should be permissible when paid to employee sales representatives. However, labs should be cautious when considering commission-based compensation to independent contractor sales representatives. I. The Anti-Kickback Statute The AKS subjects to criminal and civil penalties anyone who knowingly and willfully offers, pays, solicits, or receives remuneration to induce or reward the referral of business reimbursable under any federal health care programs. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b). Importantly, the AKS extends beyond paying value in exchange for direct patient referrals; it also prohibits paying remuneration intended to induce or reward someone to arrange for or recommend that others purchase, lease, or order any good, facility, service, or item reimbursable by any federal health care program. See Id. The AKS contains numerous safe harbors, the compliance with which protects parties from violation of the AKS. One of these is the employment safe harbor, which permits any payments to an employee if there is a bona fide employment relationship. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(3)(B). This safe harbor does not extend to independent contractors. Id. II. The Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act EKRA subjects to criminal penalties anyone who, with respect to services covered by certain public health care benefit programs, knowingly and willfully: (1) solicits or receives any remuneration in return for referring a patient or patronage to a recovery home, clinical treatment facility, or laboratory; or (2) pays any remuneration to induce a referral of an individual to a recovery home, clinical treatment facility, or laboratory or in exchange for an individual using the services of that recovery home, clinical treatment facility, or laboratory. 18 U.S.C. § 220(a). Laboratory is defined to include all laboratories, not just those that perform testing related to substance abuse. 18 U.S.C. § 220(e)(4). Notably, EKRA’s language appears to be limited to paying for direct referrals. Unlike AKS, EKRA does not include language that extends its prohibitions to paying for arranging or recommending others to make referrals or order services. In addition, EKRA does not have an employee safe harbor analogous to the employee safe harbor under AKS, but rather has a narrower exception permitting payments made under a bona fide employment relationship (including with independent contractors, unlike under the AKS employment safe harbor) where the payment does not vary based on the procedures performed, or amounts billed or received from the health care benefit program from the individuals referred. 18 U.S.C. § 220(b)(2). In 2021, a federal district court in Hawaii issued the first and, to date, only judicial opinion interpreting EKRA in S&G Labs Haw., LLC v. Graves, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200365. The district court held that while the employment agreement with Graves (a client account manager) provided for commission-based payments that varied based on the number of tests S&G performed, the arrangement did not violate EKRA since there was only an attenuated connection between the commission-based payments and patient referrals: “Undoubtedly, Graves’s commission-based compensation structure induced him to try to bring more business to S&G . . . However, the ‘client’ accounts they serviced were not individuals whose samples were tested at S&G. Their ‘clients’ were ‘the physicians, substance abuse counseling centers, or other organizations in need of having persons tested.’ However, S&G was not compensated by those ‘clients’; S&G was ‘compensated for the testing services on a ‘per test’ basis by third party insurers, government agencies under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and direct self-pay by some individuals.’ There is no evidence that Graves’s client accounts included individuals who self-paid for S&G to perform urinalysis on their samples.” Id. at 33-34. The district court concluded that since “Graves was not working with individuals, the compensation that S&G paid him was not paid to induce him to refer individuals to S&G.” Id. at 34. In other words, the district court concluded that because Graves was not himself a source of lab referrals, EKRA’s prohibitions could not reach the volume-based compensation arrangement between Graves and his laboratory employer. III. Commissions to Employee Sales Representatives vs. Independent Contractor Sales Representatives Under current law discussed above, labs should generally be able to make commission-based payments (including commissions based on volume, revenue, profit, etc.) to employee sales representatives, but should carefully consider the AKS when proceeding with respect to independent contractor sales representatives. A. Employee Sales Representatives Commission-based payments, including commission based on volume, revenue, profit, etc., to employee sales representatives are permissible under the AKS. Such payments would fall within the AKS employment safe harbor so long as a bona fide employment relationship exists. Per the S&G Labs interpretation of EKRA, commission-based payments, including commission based on volume, revenue, profit, etc., to employee sales representatives are also permissible under EKRA, provided that a lab’s employee sales representatives have a similar relationship to their client accounts as that described in S&G Labs, wherein sales representatives are working with physician clinics, hospitals, and other organizations and facilities that would utilize the lab, and are not working with individual patients. B. Independent Contractor Sales Representatives Based on the only case law to address the issue at this point, so long as independent contractor sales representatives work with organizations and facilities, and are not in a position to refer individual patients, then EKRA should not bar commission-based payments to a lab’s independent contractor sales representatives. However, commission-based payments to independent contractor sales representatives remain an issue under the AKS if the laboratory business involves federal health care programs. Such payments fall outside of the employment safe harbor to the AKS, and the broad reach of the AKS prohibition on arranging or recommending that others order items and services could extend to payment arrangements with independent contractor sales representatives. Consequently, laboratories should proceed cautiously when considering compensating independent contractor sales personnel based in whole or in part on a volume- or value-based methodology. We will continue to closely monitor the state of EKRA and the AKS for guidance, revisions to the law, and enforcement. If you have further questions or need advice on how to restructure compensation arrangements to comply with EKRA and the AKS, please contact the authors or your regular Dorsey attorney.  

On November 8, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) released a revised Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol, renamed Health Care Fraud Self-Disclosure Protocol (“SDP”).  Prior to this update, the SDP had not been updated since 2013.  While many of the revisions were procedural only, some of the revisions were notable, including an increase in the minimum amount required to settle fraud claims under the SDP. Background.  The SDP was established in 1998 as a mechanism for health care providers, suppliers and other persons subject to the OIG’s civil monetary penalty (“CMP”) authorities to voluntarily disclose self-discovered evidence of possible fraud implicating federal health care program funds.  Benefits of the SDP include potentially minimizing costs and disruptions for the disclosing party by avoiding a government-initiated investigation and accompanying litigation, paying a lower multiplier on damages than would be required in a government-initiated investigation, and a release from the OIG’s permissive exclusion authorities without integrity agreement obligations.  The OIG has a website related to the SDP with additional information, including a list of recently settled SDP submissions.  The OIG reported in the revised SDP that, between 1998 and 2020, it resolved over 2,200 disclosures, resulting in recoveries of more than $870 million to the federal health care programs.  Certain conduct is not eligible for the SDP, such as disclosure of an arrangement that involves only liability under the federal physician self-referral law (or “Stark Law”) without also involving potential liability under the federal anti-kickback statute (“AKS”).  The CMS Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol (“SRDP”) is available for conduct that involves only liability under the Stark Law. Updates. The most important update in the revised SDP is that the OIG increased the minimum amount required to settle fraud claims under the SDP in conformity with 2018 changes to statutory minimum penalty amounts for CMPs.  The new minimum settlement amounts are $100,000 for kickback-related SDP submissions (up from $50,000) and $20,000 for all other SDP submissions (up from $10,000). In addition, all SDP submissions must now be made through OIG’s website (rather than either by mail or through the website), an SDP submission must disclose whether the disclosing party is subject to a Corporate Integrity Agreement, Corporate Integrity Agreement reportable events can be disclosed through the SDP, and an SDP submission must separately list damages to each impacted federal healthcare program as well as total damages. Next, the OIG clarified that the Department of Justice may participate in the settlement of a matter disclosed through the SDP and resolve it under the False Claims Act.  The OIG also clarified that grant- or government contract-related disclosures should be done through the OIG’s Grant Self-Disclosure Program or Contractor Self-Disclosure Program, respectively, not the Health Care Fraud SDP.  Finally, the OIG made several miscellaneous changes to statistics, terminology, and background information. Many of the core requirements for SDP submissions have not changed, however, such as timing and content requirements and damages calculation methodologies.  In addition, the potential benefits of SDP submissions have not changed, including a potential exclusion release and lower multiplier for damages calculations. If you have any questions about the SDP or a potential disclosure through the SDP, please contact the authors or your regular Dorsey attorney.

The Dorsey Health Law blog team keeps readers up-to-date on relevant topics in the health care industry. In order to do so, the members of the blog team communicate regularly with other practice groups within the firm for applicable updates from client publications. For this post, we would like to thank Dorsey’s Christopher DeLong for last week's FCA Now blog post: On June 28, 2021, the United States Supreme Court denied review of a Seventh Circuit decision affirming the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)-requested dismissal of a False Claims Act (“FCA”) suit alleging a drug kickback scheme.  Cimznhca LLC v. United States, No. 20-1138, 2021 U.S. LEXIS 3404 (June 28, 2021).  As a result, the circuit split regarding the standard that applies to a Government’s motion to dismiss an FCA action remains unresolved. To continue reading, click here.

On April 26, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) issued favorable Advisory Opinion No. 21-02 regarding a proposed investment in an ambulatory surgery center (“ASC”) by a health system, orthopedic surgeon and neurosurgeon employees of the health system, and a management company. This latest Advisory Opinion is notable because it is the first time that the OIG has considered a venture that included a health system and its employees.  As employment of physicians has grown, so have the number of potential ventures between employees and their health systems, making this latest Advisory Opinion particularly relevant.  OIG guidance on ASCs is also uncommon, and in fact, this is the first ASC Advisory Opinion in over a decade.  So, investors should review the OIG’s analysis carefully to understand the numerous elements that the OIG emphasized for mitigating risk. While the OIG concluded that the proposed investment would lead to sanctionable remuneration under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) if the requisite intent were present, it determined that it would not impose sanctions on the requesting parties because of several integrated safeguards. A main takeaway from the OIG’s analysis was its conclusion that, with respect to the investments to be made by the health system and physician investors, the proposed investment presents a sufficiently low risk of fraud and abuse under the AKS for the combination of the following reasons. Physician Investors Who Can’t Meet the 1/3rd Income Test Still Integrate the ASC Into Their Regular Practice; Physician Investors Are Not Significant Source of Cross-Referrals Since neurosurgeons primarily perform inpatient procedures, one or more of the neurosurgeon investors may not comply with the safe harbor requirement that at least one-third of each physician investor’s annual income come from the performance of procedures that would be payable by Medicare when performed in an ASC. However, the OIG found it significant that the neurosurgeon investors would integrate use of the proposed ASC into their regular practice. In addition, the physician investors would personally perform almost all of their own referrals to the proposed ASC, rather than referring these procedure to other physicians. The health system estimated that only about 1% of the total number of ASC-qualified procedures done at the ASC would come from a different physician investor’s referral. Risk of Health System’s Influence on Referrals Mitigated The OIG also found that the proposed ASC had sufficient safeguards to mitigate the health system’s potential role in making or influencing referrals to the ASC. The health system certified that its affiliated physicians (i.e., employees, independent contractors, and members of the medical staff) would be paid consistent with fair market value and that such compensation would not be related, directly or indirectly, to the volume or value of their respective referrals to the ASC or its physician investors. The health system also certified that it would neither require nor encourage its affiliated physicians to refer patients to the ASC or its physician investors, and it would not track its affiliated physicians’ actual referrals. Reduce Risk of Rewarding Referrals through Structure of Investment Returns and Offers of Ownership Under the proposed ASC, potential investors’ opportunities to invest, and their investment returns, would not be based on anticipated or actual referrals to the ASC.  . Capital contributions and profit distributions would be based on an individual investor’s investment interest in the ASC. Additionally, the ASC and its investors would not be permitted to promise or provide loans for the purpose of another investor gaining an investment interest in the ASC, and investors would be required to invest directly in the ASC (as opposed to through a pass-through entity). Safeguards on Investors’ Other Financial Relationships The ASC committed that its space or equipment leases would comply with the AKS space and equipment rental safe harbors. Similarly, any services rendered by the health system or the real estate company jointly owned by the investors would comply with the applicable AKS safe harbor for personal services and management contracts and outcomes-based payments. In addition, all ASC patients referred by an ASC investor would be given full written notice of the investor’s financial interest in the ASC. Other Safeguards The OIG listed several other significant safeguards against fraud and abuse presented by the proposed ASC. First, the ASC and its investors would provide non-discriminatory treatment to patients covered under any federal health care program. Second, the health system certified that all ancillary services for ASC patients covered under a federal health care program would directly and integrally relate to the ASC’s primary procedures. Further, the health system certified that the ASC would not bill any federal health care program separately for ancillary services. Third, the health system certified that it would not include ASC costs on cost reports or claims for payment by a federal health care program (unless such reporting is otherwise required by the program). With respect to the investments to be made by the management company, the OIG determined that even while the management company may be in a position to directly or indirectly influence referrals and thereby increase its investment returns, the proposed ASC had sufficient safeguards to mitigate that risk. Similar to the health system and physician investors, the management company certified that it would not make or influence referrals to the ASC or its physician investors. Additionally, no physician would have any investment interest in the management company. For all of these reasons, the OIG concluded that the proposed ASC arrangement presents a sufficiently low risk under the AKS and that the OIG would not impose administrative sanctions against the requesting parties in connection with the ASC. While Advisory Opinion No. 21-02 may only be relied upon by the requesting parties, it does provide helpful insight into risk mitigation factors when considering other ASC structures. If you have any questions about ASCs, please contact the author or your regular Dorsey attorney. Summer Associate Laura C.S. Newberry provided substantial assistance researching and drafting this blog post.

In 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) launched the “Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care” to accelerate a transformation of the healthcare system, with a focus on removing “unnecessary obstacles” to coordinated care (the “Regulatory Sprint”). Several HHS agencies requested comments and information from the public and have published new or proposed regulations as part of the Regulatory Sprint on areas that have historically been viewed as barriers to innovative care coordination arrangements—namely, healthcare fraud and abuse and health information privacy. On November 20, 2020, the HHS Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) each issued a sweeping set of final regulations that introduced significant new value-based terminology, safe harbors and exceptions, as well as clarifications of existing requirements, under the federal anti-kickback statute (“AKS”) and federal physician self-referral law (“Stark Law”), respectively. Additionally, the OIG issued final regulations related to modernizing the civil monetary penalty law governing inducements provided to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries (the “CMPL”).  The final OIG and CMS rules are effective on January 19, 2021, with the exception of changes to the Stark “group practice” definition, which do not go into effect until January 1, 2022.  There are hundreds of pages of preamble guidance and revised regulation text setting forth these sweeping changes to the Stark Law, AKS and CMPL regulations from CMS and OIG.  To help you digest these materials, a team of attorneys from Dorsey & Whitney’s Healthcare Transactions and Regulations Practice Group has published two white papers, which are available at the links below.  In addition, we have posted at a link below the playback of a webinar we hosted about the final rules on January 6, 2021.  The white papers and webinar playback provide an in-depth summary of the changes to these regulations, including key provisions from CMS and OIG preamble guidance.  Finally, we have posted below redlines comparing the existing Stark Law, AKS and CMPL regulations to the revised version of each of these regulations in the final rules. With respect to health information privacy, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on December 10, 2020 which proposes changes to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and to the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”) Privacy Rule.  Additionally, the HHS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (“SAMHSA”) published final rules to revise regulations related to the privacy of substance use disorder treatment records in July 2020. These changes in federal regulations are anticipated to make a significant impact on healthcare providers and other stakeholders that may have been reticent to initiate certain care coordination arrangements because of perceived regulatory barriers and lack of regulatory clarity.  In addition, clarifications to existing regulations impact stakeholders beyond their involvement in care coordination arrangements. The team of attorneys in Dorsey & Whitney’s Healthcare Transactions and Regulations Practice Group will continue to closely monitor these changes, and post updates and analysis below as new information becomes available.   Stark Regulatory Changes Effective January 1, 2022 Require Modifying Certain Group Practice Compensation Methodologies | News & Resources Webinar Playback: Final Stark and Anti-Kickback Statute Rules: What You Need to Know White Paper: Understanding the Final Rules to Revise the Stark Law Regulations White Paper: Understanding the Final Rules to Revise the Anti-Kickback Statute and Beneficiary Inducement Civil Monetary Penalty Regulations The Regulatory Sprint Catches up to HIPAA: New Proposed HIPAA Rules Redline of Final AKS Regulatory Text Redline of Final CMP Regulatory Text Redline of Final Stark Regulatory Text effective 1.1.2022 - 411.352(i) only Redline of Final Stark Regulatory Text effective 1.19.2021 Much-Anticipated Final Rules to Revise Stark Law, Anti-Kickback Statute, Beneficiary Inducement CMP Regulations Released under “Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care” CMS Finalizes Changes to the Stark Advisory Opinion Regulations; 2020 DHS Code List and CPI-U Updates Sweeping Proposals Issued by CMS to Revise Stark Law Regulations  Sweeping Proposals Issued By OIG To Make Changes To The Anti-Kickback Statute Safe Harbors And Add An Exception To The Civil Monetary Penalty Law Governing Beneficiary Inducements A Massive Number of New Health Law Regulatory Proposals as Part of the “Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care”: Proposed Changes to the Stark Law, Anti-Kickback Statute, Beneficiary Inducement CMP, Privacy Laws Governing Substance Use Disorder Records, and the Stark Law Advisory Opinion Process CMS "Actively Working" on Stark Law Reforms to be Issued Later this Year; "Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care" Continues OIG Seeks Public Input on Anti-Kickback Statute and Beneficiary Inducements CMP as part of the “Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care” Calls for Modernizing the Stark Law Continue; CMS Seeks Public Input on Stark Law Reforms

In just two weeks, on January 19, 2021, a sweeping set of changes to the federal physician self-referral law (or “Stark Law”) and anti-kickback statute (“AKS”) regulations go into effect.  These changes, which are part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) “Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care,” are the most significant changes to the Stark Law and AKS in a decade.  There are hundreds of pages of preamble guidance and revised regulation text setting forth these sweeping changes from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and HHS Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). To help you digest these materials, a team of attorneys from Dorsey & Whitney’s Healthcare Transactions and Regulations Practice Group has published two white papers, which are available at the following links: White Paper: Understanding the Final Rules to Revise the Stark Law Regulations White Paper: Understanding the Final Rules to Revise the Anti-Kickback Statute and Beneficiary Inducement Civil Monetary Penalty Regulations These white papers provide an in-depth summary of the changes to these regulations, including key provisions from CMS and OIG preamble guidance.  Please contact the authors or your regular Dorsey attorney if you would like assistance with understanding how the final rules impact your organization.

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) has issued a Special Fraud Alert to highlight what it views as inherent risks associated with speaker programs that pharmaceutical and medical device companies organize and fund. These programs are typically company-sponsored events at which one or more physicians or other health care professionals make presentations about a device or drug product or disease state.  The company will usually pay the speaker an honorarium and expenses, and may pay travel or other costs of attendees. Using unusually strong language, the OIG states that it is “skeptical about the educational value of such programs.”   Numerous investigations have revealed to the OIG that, often, health care professionals receive generous compensation to speak at these programs, and that the programs are offered under circumstances unconducive to learning, or involve audience members who have no legitimate reason to attend.  These cases cause the OIG to conclude that in many circumstances at least one purpose of the compensation paid to the speaker (and to the attendees), is to induce or reward referrals of the company’s products.  Any payment made purposefully to induce or reward referrals of items payable by a federal health care program is a violation of the federal anti-kickback statute, which is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment for 10 years, or both.  Violation of the anti-kickback statute can also lead to liability under the federal civil false claims act, civil monetary penalties, and exclusion from federal health care programs.  Health care professionals who solicit or accept such payments are also at risk of violating the anti-kickback statute. Some of the characteristics of suspect speaker programs include: Sales or marketing personnel influence speaker selection; Health care professionals attend multiple programs on the same topic; The company sponsors numerous programs on the same or similar topics, particularly without a recent substantive change in the information; Significant time elapses with no new medical or scientific information nor new FDA-approved or cleared indication for a product; The company pays more than fair market value for the speaking services or pays compensation that takes into account the volume or value of past or potential future business generated by the health care professionals; Attendees include those without a legitimate business reason to attend; The location of the program is not conducive to the exchange of education information; or Alcohol (particularly fee alcohol), or a meal exceeding modest value is provided to attendees. The OIG points out that many other ways exist for health care professionals to obtain information about drug or device products, such as online resources, third-party educational conferences, medical journals, and others.  The existence of these other resources that do not involve payment to health care professionals suggests to the OIG that at least one purpose of payment associated with speaker programs is often to induce or reward referrals. The current pandemic emergency has put many in-person speaking programs on hold.  When in-person speaking programs resume, it will be important for medical device and pharmaceutical companies to review their speaker program practices, and take into account the OIG’s strong skepticism.   Both the OIG fraud alert and the alternative ways that health care professionals have learned about drug and device products during the pandemic have altered the landscape for speaker programs:  speaker program sponsors should take notice. If you have questions about the topic addressed here, please contact the author of any member of the Dorsey &Whitney Health Care Transactions & Regulations Practice Group.

On November 20, 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) each released their much-anticipated final rules to revise the federal self-referral law (or “Stark Law”) regulations, the safe harbors under the federal anti-kickback statute (AKS), and regulations under the beneficiary inducements civil monetary penalty law (CMP).  The final rules are part of HHS’s “Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care,” which seeks to remove regulatory obstacles to care coordination and a value-based healthcare delivery system. The public inspection copy of the final CMS rules is available here, and the CMS fact sheet on the final rules is available here.  The public inspection copy of the final OIG rules is available here, and the OIG fact sheet on the final rules is available here.  Both rules will be published in the Federal Register on December 2, 2020. For our prior posts on the Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care, see here. We are reviewing the final rules and will post an in-depth analysis in the coming weeks.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) has taken numerous steps to minimize regulatory burdens for providers who need to make their primary focus delivering patient care during the COVID-19 national emergency. These steps, along with recent steps taken by other agencies to provide temporary regulatory flexibility, provide further welcomed relief to providers who are facing a tremendous burden during this time. 1. AKS Administrative Sanctions Not Imposed for Remuneration Covered by Stark Blanket Waivers related to “COVID-19 Purposes” As we wrote about in our prior blog post, on March 30, 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued 18 blanket waivers of sanctions under the federal physician self-referral law (or “Stark Law”) for remuneration and referrals related to “COVID-19 Purposes” (the “Stark Blanket Waivers”). Then, on April 3, 2020, the OIG issued a Policy Statement notifying interested parties that it “will exercise its enforcement discretion not to impose administrative sanctions under the Federal anti-kickback statute [(“AKS”)] for certain remuneration related to COVID-19” that is covered by certain of the Stark Blanket Waivers. As the OIG explained in this Policy Statement, ordinarily, some financial relationships that implicate the Stark Law may also implicate, and may potentially violate, the AKS. In the Policy Statement, the OIG stated that it will not impose sanctions with respect to remuneration covered by the first 11 of the Stark Blanket Waivers, provided that all of the conditions and definitions within the Stark Blanket Waivers are met. This includes certain remuneration to or from a physician that is above or below fair market value and remuneration to a physician in the form of medical staff incidental benefits or non-monetary compensation that exceeds the limits set forth in applicable Stark exceptions (when specified requirements are met). Note that the remainder of the 18 Stark Blanket Waivers relates to referrals rather than remuneration. In the Policy Statement, the OIG specified that parties can submit questions via email to OIGComplianceSuggestions@oig.hhs.gov related to the application of the OIG’s administrative sanctions for remuneration associated with referrals described in items 12-17 of the Stark Blanket Waivers. (The OIG did not mention the 18th Stark Blanket Waiver, which relates to compensation arrangements that do not satisfy the writing or signature requirements of an applicable Stark exception, even though various AKS safe harbors also have writing and signature requirements. Presumably, parties can also submit questions to OIG about such arrangements, although many such arrangements may not implicate the AKS based on a facts and circumstances analysis outside of safe harbor protection.) The OIG stated that its purpose in issuing the Policy Statement was to avoid the need for parties to undertake a separate legal review under the AKS for arrangements that are covered by the Stark Blanket Waivers. The OIG cautioned, however, that the Policy Statement does not have any bearing on arrangements that are not covered by the Stark Blanket Waivers. This would include, for example, arrangements between a manufacturer and a physician, and arrangements that do not involve a physician (or immediate family member of a physician). The Policy Statement applies to conduct occurring on or after April 3, 2020, whereas the Stark Blanket Waivers were retroactive to March 1, 2020. The Policy Statement terminates the same day that the Stark Blanket Waivers terminate (i.e., the end of the Public Health Emergency (“PHE”) that was declared related to COVID-19). 2. Other Recent OIG Initiatives In addition to the Policy Statement described above, the OIG has undertaken other notable initiatives lately related to COVID-19. Specifically: The OIG issued a “Message from leadership on minimizing burdens on providers” on March 30, 2020, in which it stated: “For any conduct during this emergency that may be subject to OIG administrative enforcement, OIG will carefully consider the context and intent of the parties when assessing whether to proceed with any enforcement action.” On April 3, 2020, the OIG posted a FAQ website about the application of OIG’s administrative enforcement authorities (specifically, the AKS and beneficiary inducements civil monetary penalty) to arrangements connected to the COVID-19 PHE. This website sets forth instructions for submitting questions and limitations on the FAQs, including how this informal feedback during the unique circumstances of the PHE differs from the legally binding OIG advisory opinion process (which remains available to interested parties). Thus far, the FAQ website has one FAQ posted, in which the OIG responded to a question about whether health care providers/practitioners can furnish services for free or at a reduced rate to assist long-term care providers facing staffing shortages. The OIG stated: “In the unique circumstances resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak, we believe that these scenarios likely would present a low risk of fraud and abuse under the Federal anti-kickback statute and the Beneficiary Inducements CMP provided the services being offered are (i) necessary to meet patient care needs as a result of staffing shortages directly connected to the COVID-19 outbreak; (ii) provided for free or at a reduced cost only when necessary as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak; (iii) limited to the period subject to the COVID-19 Declaration; and (iv) not contingent on referrals for any items or services that may be reimbursable in whole or in part by a Federal health care program, either during or after the COVID-19 Declaration period.” The OIG has a “COVID-19 Portal” website, which includes a link for submitting questions regarding OIG’s authorities during the COVID-19 PHE, as well as links for information about other news and resources regarding OIG’s COVID-19 initiatives. On April 3, 2020, the OIG published a report based on brief phone interviews (or “pulse surveys”) that it conducted from March 23 to March 27, 2020 from a random sample of 323 hospitals across the country on challenges the hospitals are facing in responding to COVID-19, strategies used to address those challenges, and how the government can provide support. A summary of the report can be found here, and the complete report can be found here. Finally, while not related to easing provider burdens during the COVID-19 PHE, we note that on March 23, 2020, the OIG alerted the public about new fraud schemes related to COVID-19. In addition, a number of recently added OIG work plan items relate to COVID-19 response matters. * * * For assistance in determining whether an existing or proposed arrangement meets the criteria for waiving AKS administrative sanctions under the OIG Policy Statement described herein, or for any other questions regarding recent OIG initiatives related to COVID-19, please contact the authors or your regular Dorsey & Whitney LLP attorney. Dorsey is closely monitoring the rapidly evolving legal landscape related to the COVID-19 pandemic. You can access Dorsey’s health law blog related to health law updates, available here. You can also access Dorsey’s coronavirus resource center, which contains a wide variety of legal resources related to the coronavirus outbreak, available here.

The first publicly disclosed prosecution under the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act (“EKRA”) occurred last month, a little over a year after EKRA became law. As we described in a previous blog post, EKRA criminalizes certain health care payment arrangements related to referrals, regardless of payor. In the recent EKRA prosecution, an office manager of a Kentucky substance abuse treatment clinic pleaded guilty to soliciting kickbacks from a toxicology laboratory in exchange for urine drug testing referrals. Theresa Merced, the 80-year-old office manager, admitted that the CEO of the toxicology lab gave her a $4,000 check as part of a larger bundle of promised inducements. When law enforcement questioned Merced about the check, she denied knowledge of it and said it was likely a loan from the CEO to her husband. After the questioning, Merced asked the CEO to alter the laboratory’s financial records to reflect her story. Last month, Merced plead guilty to one count of violating EKRA, one count of making false statements, and one count of attempted tampering with records. She is scheduled to be sentenced on May 1, 2020, and faces up to twenty years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000. EKRA was passed as part of the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act of 2018 (the “SUPPORT Act”) in response to concerns that the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) was not broad enough to adequately address abusive payment arrangements related to addiction treatment centers. The laws are similar, yet are distinct in several ways. Like the AKS, EKRA makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, pay or offer any remuneration in order to induce referrals. EKRA, however, only covers arrangements that induce referrals to specific entities: recovery homes, clinical treatment facilities (i.e., certain non-hospital settings that provide substance use treatment), and laboratories. Additionally, EKRA applies to payment arrangements involving all payors, not just those involving federal health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Both the AKS and EKRA are criminal statutes with a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years. Both laws provide for several similar safe harbors, but the EKRA safe harbors are narrower in certain respects. For example, although the AKS provides a safe harbor for any payment that is part of any bona fide employment arrangement, EKRA’s employment safe harbor only permits payment that does not vary based on the number of individuals referred, the number of tests or procedures performed, or the amount billed to or received from the health care benefit program from the individuals referred. Thus, EKRA does not protect employment compensation to the same extent that the AKS does.  . Although the DOJ has authority to clarify the law and its safe harbors by regulations, none have been proposed. Since EKRA passed in October 2018, many have raised concerns about whether Congress intended for the law to apply so broadly and whether it will be enforced for activity that was previously permissible under the AKS. The Merced prosecution did not involve employment compensation, so does not shed light on whether DOJ or HHS will pursue criminal enforcement for business practices previously permitted under the AKS. The prosecution also dispels hopes that the DOJ would refrain from prosecuting under the statute until clarifying the law through regulations or guidance. The consequences of EKRA are potentially far-reaching and severe. Until clarifying regulations are promulgated, healthcare providers and other entities should evaluate whether their referral and compensation practices comply with the EKRA safe harbors in addition to the safe harbors of the Stark Law and AKS. Because EKRA applies to all payors, this evaluation should take into account practices related to all claims, not just government-reimbursed claims. We will continue to closely monitor the state of EKRA for guidance, revisions to the law, and enforcement. If you have further questions or need advice on how to restructure payment arrangements to comply with EKRA, please contact the authors or your regular Dorsey attorney.

Following the passage of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), which placed new limits on physician-owned hospitals, St. Luke’s Health System (“System”) took action to change one of its hospital’s ownership structures through a buy-out of the physicians’ partnership interests pursuant to the Texas Securities Act (“TSA”). The TSA allows rescission for the original price paid for a security, plus interest, in exchange for a release of potential liability under TSA. Three of the physician-owners, who resisted the System’s attempt to rescind their ownership interests, sued the System and other defendants in connection with the buy-out alleging state-law violations and violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute, and by extension, the False Claims Act. To read the full article, view our FCA Now blog, linked here:  

In the calendar year 2020 Medicare physician fee schedule final rule (“PFS”), which was published in the Federal Register on November 15, 2019 (available here), CMS finalized changes to the advisory opinion process under the federal physician self-referral law (“Stark Law” or “Stark”).  CMS also published its annual update to CPT/HCPCS codes used to identify certain categories of Stark designated health services (or “DHS”).  These regulatory changes and annual code update both go into effect on January 1, 2020. Finalized Changes to Stark Advisory Opinion Regulations Under the CMS advisory opinion process, the regulations for which are found at 42 C.F.R. §§ 411.370–389, parties can seek an advisory opinion from CMS as to whether a referral for DHS (other than clinical laboratory services) is prohibited under the Stark Law.  CMS determines in the opinion whether an arrangement constitutes a “financial relationship” that would implicate the Stark Law’s referral prohibition and whether the arrangement or the referred service qualifies for a Stark Law exception.  CMS issued a Request for Information (“RFI”) in June 2018 as part of the “Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care” about ways CMS could modify the Stark Law regulations in order to reduce barriers to patient care coordination and value-based arrangements and to reduce the regulatory burden of complying with the Stark Law generally, which we wrote about here.  CMS did not specifically solicit comments regarding the Stark advisory opinion process in the RFI, but CMS received a number of comments about ways that the Stark advisory opinion process could be improved.  CMS explains in preamble to the PFS that it “undertook a fresh review” of the advisory opinion process in light of the comments it received to “identify limitations and restrictions that may be unnecessarily serving as an obstacle to a more robust advisory opinion process.” CMS also recently issued sweeping proposed Stark Law regulatory changes as part of the Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care on topics related to the RFI, which we wrote about in a white paper available here.  While the changes to the advisory opinion regulations do not directly relate to the shift to a value-based health care delivery system, CMS acknowledges in preamble to the PFS that “a faster and more robust advisory opinion process facilitates the shift to value-based care arrangements by providing more guidance for parties trying to understand how the physician self-referral law applies in an evolving and innovative marketplace. This will help to reduce provider burden by providing insight into what does and does not comply with the law, which encourages innovation.” Since the initial advisory opinion regulations were issued in 1998, CMS has only issued 16 advisory opinions, which are available here.  (CMS also issued 15 advisory opinions from 2004-2005 during the 18-month moratorium on physician ownership and investment interests in specialty hospitals that was in effect at that time, which are available here.)  In contrast, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office of Inspector General (“OIG”), which has a separate advisory opinion process for the federal anti-kickback statute (“AKS”) and certain other laws, issued 14 advisory opinions in calendar year 2018 alone (available here).  In preamble to the PFS, CMS recognizes the importance of an accessible advisory opinion process and acknowledges that the current advisory opinion process has not been widely used.  An accessible advisory opinion process is particularly important in the context of the Stark Law, since it is a strict liability statute, and there is a great need for certainty because, as CMS acknowledges, “parties that act in good faith may nonetheless face significant financial exposure if they misunderstand or misapply the law’s exceptions.” We anticipate that the changes to the advisory opinion process may indeed help to make the process more meaningful and accessible to entities that are seeking to understand if their arrangement complies with the Stark Law, particularly due to CMS’s broadening of how advisory opinions can be relied upon (as described below).  If you are interested in submitting an advisory opinion request, or for advice on whether and how you can rely on a published advisory opinion in assessing an arrangement for compliance with the Stark Law, please contact the authors or your regular Dorsey attorney. The most notable changes to the advisory opinion regulations in the PFS are the following: Reliance on an Advisory Opinion: Under existing Stark regulations, only the individual or entity that requested the advisory opinion may rely on the opinion. In the PFS, CMS finalizes revisions to regulations to specify the following: An advisory opinion is binding on the Secretary of HHS, and a favorable advisory opinion means that sanctions will not be imposed under the Stark Law with respect to individuals/entities that are parties to the arrangement upon which the opinion was issued (as well as the individuals/entities that requested the opinion). The Secretary of HHS will not pursue sanctions under the Stark Law “against any party to an arrangement that CMS determines is indistinguishable in all its material aspects from an arrangement with respect to which CMS issued a favorable advisory opinion.” Parties can submit an advisory opinion request to determine whether CMS would view their arrangement as “indistinguishable in all material aspects” from another arrangement that has received a favorable opinion, which will be issued by CMS on an expedited basis (as explained below). Individuals/entities can rely on advisory opinions “as non-binding guidance that illustrates the application of the physician self-referral law and regulations to the specific facts and circumstances described in the advisory opinion.” CMS acknowledges that stakeholders already use advisory opinions to inform their decision-making, and this change is intended to make clear that “such reliance is permissible and reasonable.” Timeline for Issuing an Advisory Opinion: Under existing regulations, CMS currently has a 90-day timeframe to issue an advisory opinion. CMS finalizes its proposed changes to the regulatory text to shorten this to 60 “working days” (where “working day” excludes weekends and holidays) after the request has been formally accepted.  CMS maintains the discretion it has in existing regulations to extend this time period when a request involves “complex legal issues of first impression or highly complicated fact patterns” and to suspend the time period in certain circumstances. CMS finalizes revisions to regulations to provide for expedited review of advisory opinion requests that relate to whether an arrangement is “indistinguishable in all material aspects” from an arrangement that was the subject of a favorable advisory opinion. The expedited review period will be 30 working days. Fees for the Cost of Advisory Opinions: CMS finalizes revisions to regulations to revise the fee structure for advisory opinions. Specifically, the $250 initial fee is removed and a $220 hourly rate is implemented. In the PFS, CMS also finalizes its proposed changes to the advisory opinion regulations in the following areas (among others): Matters Subject to Advisory Opinions: CMS finalizes revisions to regulations to allow CMS to consider advisory opinion requests that “relate to” existing or planned arrangements, rather than requests that “involve” them, which is intended to capture the scope of appropriate advisory opinion requests. CMS explains that it remains its position that advisory opinion requests cannot be regarding only “hypothetical facts or general questions of interpretation,” but must be about a specific referral, physician, financial relationship and facts/circumstances. CMS does acknowledge, however, that there is some confusion over what is a planned arrangement versus a hypothetical arrangement, so is removing this language from the advisory opinion regulations.  It also revised the regulatory text to reflect its view that a request for an advisory opinion would not be accepted if the claim could not be billed to Medicare for some reason unrelated to the Stark Law. CMS finalizes revisions to regulations to allow CMS more flexibility related to advisory opinion requests that involve conduct that is “substantially similar to conduct that is under investigation or is the subject of a law enforcement proceeding.” Certification Requirement: CMS finalizes revisions to regulations to allow for any authorized officer of the corporation to sign the certification statement, in addition to the Chief Executive Officer. Rescission: CMS finalizes revisions to regulations related to when CMS may rescind an advisory opinion, which is when CMS determines that there is good cause to do so. “Good cause” exists when “(i) there is a material change in the law that affects the conclusions reached in an opinion; or (ii) a party that has received a negative advisory opinion seeks reconsideration based on new facts or law.”  CMS declines to adopt a minimum wind-down period in regulatory text for arrangements that are the subject of a rescinded advisory opinion, and states that it will work with parties affected by a rescinded opinion to determine a reasonable wind down period.  CMS also finalizes regulatory changes to provide for an advance notice to the requestor and the public of a rescinded opinion. 2020 DHS Code List and CPI-U Updates The PFS also includes the annual update to the list of CPT/HCPCS codes used to identify certain categories of DHS (the “Code List”).  As we explained in prior posts (such as this one), the Stark Law regulations at 42 C.F.R. § 411.351 specify that the following four categories of DHS are defined by reference to the Code List: (1) clinical laboratory services; (2) physical therapy, occupational therapy, and outpatient speech-language pathology services; (3) radiology and certain other imaging services; and (4) radiation therapy services and supplies.  The Code List is updated annually to reflect changes in the most recent CPT and HCPCS Level II publications. Further, items and services that may qualify for either of two Stark Law exceptions—the exception for preventive screening tests, immunizations and vaccines at 42 C.F.R. § 411.355(h) and the exception for EPO and other dialysis-related drugs at 42 C.F.R. § 411.355(g)—are identified by reference to the Code List.  The Code List included the annual updates to the codes eligible for the preventive screening tests, immunizations and vaccines exception.  However, as in previous years, the Code List does not include any codes eligible for the EPO and other dialysis-related drugs exception (for reasons explained by CMS in the rule).  The PFS rule includes tables showing the additions and deletions to the Code List.  We expect that, as per usual, the complete list will be posted before the end of the year to the CMS Stark website dedicated to the Code List, found here. We also expect that the CPI-U Updates page of the CMS Stark website, found here, will be updated before the end of the year to reflect the new compensation limits for the nonmonetary compensation exception (at 42 C.F.R. § 411.357(k)) and medical staff incidental benefits exception (at 42 C.F.R. § 411.357(m)), which are both updated annually for inflation.

Today, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) each released their long-anticipated proposed rules to revise the federal self-referral law (or “Stark Law”) regulations, the safe harbors under the federal anti-kickback statute (AKS), and the civil monetary penalty law (CMP) for beneficiary inducements.  The proposed rules are part of HHS’s “Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care,” which seeks to remove regulatory obstacles to care coordination and a value-based healthcare delivery system. The HHS press release regarding the proposed rules is available here,  and includes links to each of the CMS and OIG proposed rules.  For our prior posts on the Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care, see here and here. Relatedly, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) published proposed rules to revise privacy rules for substance use disorder records on August 26, and CMS published proposed rules to revise the Stark Law advisory opinion regulations on August 14 (as part of the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule proposed rule). We are reviewing the proposed rules and will post an in-depth analysis shortly.

As reported here in February, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released two new significant proposed regulations that would have had a transformative effect on the drug discount and rebate arrangements that are commonplace between pharmaceutical manufacturers and Medicare Part D Plans and Medicaid Managed Care Organizations (and the pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) acting on their behalf). The Administration’s goal with these proposed regulations was to reduce prescription drug prices.  However, in July, the Administration abandoned these proposed regulations (as shown on the Office of Management and Budget website) out of concern that they would actually have the opposite effect and result in increased drug prices.  President Trump reportedly became concerned after the proposals received significant support from the pharmaceutical companies. The proposals would have eliminated the current federal anti-kickback statute (AKS) safe harbor protection relied upon by manufacturers and PBMs for the rebates paid by manufacturers to PBMs for certain drugs.  In its place, the OIG proposed a much more narrow safe harbor that would have only applied if the reduced price from the manufacturer was fixed in advance and disclosed to the plan, the full value of the price reduction was disclosed to the pharmacy through a chargeback to ensure that the total payment to the pharmacy for the drug was no less than what the health plan (or PBM on its behalf) paid to the manufacturer for the drug, and the reduction in the drug’s price was completely applied to the price charged to the patient at the point of sale. At the same time, the OIG also proposed a new PBM service fee AKS safe harbor that would have protected payments by manufacturers to PBMs for certain services provided by PBMs, but with strict requirements for the manufacturer and PBM to have a written agreement for the services which set the compensation for the services in advance at a rate that is consistent with fair market value and not based on the volume or value of any referrals or other business generated between the parties or the health plan.  The proposed service fee safe harbor would have also required the PBM to annually disclose such arrangements, services and compensation to the health plans and to the Secretary of HHS upon request. The Administration has been vocal about its goal of reducing drug prices for patients.  So, we expect alternative action in the future which could take the form of legislation rather than the rule-making process. We are continuing to closely monitor changes in the area.

The Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 (EKRA) became law on October 24, 2018, and is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 220.  As part of the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment (SUPPORT) for Patients and Communities Act, EKRA was enacted in response to a concern that the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) was not broad enough to cover certain abusive payment arrangements related to opioid addiction treatment centers, since the AKS only applies to federal health care programs.  EKRA has considerable similarities to the AKS, but is notably distinct from the AKS in that it applies to all payors rather than just federal health care programs and has an exception for employment compensation that is much narrower than the AKS’s employment safe harbor.  Further, EKRA relates to arrangements with recovery homes, clinical treatment facilities, and laboratories (the “Subject Entities”).  With respect to laboratories, even though EKRA was enacted in response to the opioid crisis, it applies to all laboratories, not just laboratories that perform testing related to substance abuse (e.g., toxicology screening). We set forth below an overview of EKRA, exceptions to the law’s prohibitions, and recommendations to ensure compliance. Overview EKRA subjects to criminal penalties anyone who, with respect to services covered by any health care benefit program (whether federal or private), knowingly and willfully: solicits or receives any remuneration in return for referring a patient or patronage to a Subject Entity; or pays or offers any remuneration: to induce a referral of an individual to a Subject Entity; or in exchange for an individual using the services of that Subject Entity. Penalties for each occurrence of violating the law are a fine of not more than $200,000 (which is double the possible fine per violation of the AKS), imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. EKRA defines the Subject Entities as follows: Recovery home: “a shared living environment that is, or purports to be, free from alcohol and illicit drug use and centered on peer support and connection to services that promote sustained recovery from substance use disorders.” Clinical treatment facility: “a medical setting, other than a hospital, that provides detoxification, risk reduction, outpatient treatment and care, residential treatment, or rehabilitation for substance use, pursuant to licensure or certification under State law.” Laboratories: defined by reference to CLIA, which means that all laboratories are subject to EKRA. EKRA does not apply to conduct that is prohibited by the AKS, and EKRA does not “occupy the field” in which any state law may be more stringent related to the same subject matter. Exceptions Similar to AKS statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors, EKRA provides a number of exceptions to its prohibitions, including exceptions for payments made under employment arrangements, personal services and management contracts, waivers or discounts of any coinsurance or copayment, and certain other exceptions that meet specified parameters (some of which are similar to and some of which are different from the parameters under the parallel AKS exceptions/safe harbors).  EKRA also has an exception for remuneration made pursuant to certain alternative payment models, a parallel of which is not present in AKS exceptions/safe harbors. Of note, the EKRA exception for payments made by an employer is much narrower than the AKS safe harbor for employment.  Specifically, while the AKS safe harbor permits any payments to an employee as long as there is a bona fide employment relationship, the EKRA exception requires that the payment not vary based on the number of individuals referred, tests or procedures performed, or amounts billed to or received from the health care benefit program from the individuals referred.  This means that employment arrangements that would not be prohibited under the AKS, such as those with sales and marketing personnel that include commission-based compensation, appear to be prohibited under EKRA and thus need to be carefully evaluated for compliance with this new law.  (The EKRA employment exception applies to payments made by an employer both to employees and independent contractors (rather than just to employees), even though EKRA has a separate exception for personal services and management contracts.) EKRA provides that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may promulgate regulations to clarify the exceptions described in the statute. Recommendations for Complying with EKRA The Subject Entities need to: Ensure existing and future compensation arrangements fit within EKRA exceptions, particularly for employment compensation due to the narrower parameters of the EKRA employment exception as compared to the AKS employment safe harbor, and to the extent certain of such arrangements would not otherwise be analyzed for compliance with the AKS because they do not involve payment under any federal health care program. Update policies and procedures related to financial arrangements with referral sources and related to patient copay and coinsurance waivers to address compliance with EKRA. Further, entities that are not themselves a Subject Entity but that do business with a Subject Entity should evaluate their relationships with Subject Entities to ensure that such relationships are in compliance with EKRA, since the law applies to parties on both sides of the prohibited arrangement (i.e., the law prohibits both the payment or offering of referral/inducement fees, but also the soliciting or receiving of such remuneration).  Policies and procedures of non-Subject Entities who have such business relationships should also be updated to address EKRA compliance. We will continue to closely monitor the state of EKRA for guidance, revisions to the law and enforcement. Further, it is important to also understand that several states, such as Florida, Utah and California, have passed their own state level “patient brokering” laws which prohibit similar conduct and arrangements as addressed by EKRA.  These laws can also be implicated and we are monitoring their development as well.   Summer Associate Monica Delgado provided substantial assistance researching and drafting this blog post.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is “actively working” on updates to regulations under the federal physician self-referral law (or “Stark Law”), according to CMS Administrator Seema Verma during a March 4, 2019 speech. Verma stated that the updated regulations will be issued later this year, and “will represent the most significant changes to the Stark law since its inception.” Verma explained in her remarks that the Stark Law, when enacted in 1989, made sense in a fee-for-service context, but as health care transitions to a value-based system where providers take on risk and payment is for outcomes rather than individual services, “we don’t have nearly as much need to interfere with who’s getting paid for what service.” According to Verma, CMS hopes that Stark Law regulatory changes “will help spur better care coordination and help support our work to remove barriers to innovation while continuing to provide appropriate safeguards for our programs.” Verma stated that the updated regulations will include “clarifying the regulatory definitions of volume or value, commercial reasonableness and fair market value; addressing issues such as lack of signature, incorrect dates or other areas of technical noncompliance; and updating the regulation to address a world in which there are cybersecurity and electronic health records requirements.” These Stark Law regulatory reforms are part of the “Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care” launched by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Under this initiative, various HHS agencies have issued requests for information (RFIs) to solicit feedback from stakeholders on removing regulatory obstacles to care coordination. CMS published an RFI on June 25, 2018 soliciting comments regarding Stark Law reforms (as we described in our post here), which received 392 comments before the close of the comment period. We anticipate that CMS will summarize and respond to many of the comments that it received in preamble to the proposed Stark Law regulations to be issued later this year, as well as incorporate suggestions from stakeholders in the proposed regulations themselves. Also as part of the Regulatory Sprint, the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) published an RFI on August 27, 2018 soliciting comments on reforms to the anti-kickback statute and beneficiary inducements civil monetary penalty (as we described in our post here), which received 359 comments before the close of the comment period. Additionally, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) published an RFI on December 14, 2018 soliciting comments on reforms to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy and security regulations, on which the comment period closed last month. The fourth and final area of focus of the Regulatory Sprint (according to an HHS press release) is 42 CFR Part 2, which relates to the confidentiality of substance use disorder patient records. An RFI under the Regulatory Sprint for this regulation has not been published by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA, which is the agency that administers this regulation). We will provide information about regulatory reform developments under these other areas of the Regulatory Sprint as they become available.

The Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) released a proposed rule to eliminate safe harbor protection under the anti-kickback statute for drug price reductions that pharmaceutical manufacturers pay to Medicare and Medicaid plan sponsors and their pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”). The OIG proposed replacing the current safe harbor protection for drug price discounts and rebates with a new safe harbor to protect only those drug price reductions that are set in advance and are applied fully to the price of the product charged to the Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary at the point of sale. In addition, the OIG proposed a new safe harbor to protect compensation from pharmaceutical manufacturers to PBMs for services provided to the manufacturer, but only if those payments are fixed, fair market value payments not tied to volume or value, and the PBM discloses such payments to its health plan customers. The OIG’s proposals could have a significant impact on the drug discount and rebate arrangements that are commonly in place between manufacturers and Medicare Part D plans/Medicaid managed care organizations (and PBMs acting on behalf of these plans). The OIG’s proposals would also impact Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries who would be entitled to receive any such discounts directly at the point of sale. The proposed rule release can be found here and is expected to be published in the Federal Register on February 6. The proposed effective date of the new rules is January 1, 2020, with an earlier effective date of 60 days after the final rule is published, for the new point of sale safe harbor.           I.        Discount Safe Harbor – Changes to Focus on Point-of-Sale Reductions in Drug Prices   The federal anti-kickback statute (Social Security Act § 1128B(b)) makes it a criminal offense for anyone knowingly and willfully to pay, solicit, or receive anything of value to induce referrals of items or services that are reimbursable under any federal health care program. Violation of the statute is a felony, and can carry civil fines, imprisonment, exclusion from federal health care programs, and be the basis for liability under the False Claims Act. An existing safe harbor protects from anti-kickback statute liability discounts and rebates on drug prices that pharmaceutical manufacturers pay to health plans or their PBMs. The OIG’s proposal would revise the discount safe harbor to exclude from protection any reduction in price or other compensation in any form paid from a pharmaceutical manufacturer to a Medicare Part D or Medicaid managed care organization or their PBM in connection with the sale or purchase of a prescription drug. The proposal reflects OIG’s concern that the current manner in which drug price discounts and rebates are structured does not result in lower drug costs to federal programs and federal program beneficiaries, and in fact may be a cause of rising drug costs, and may be contrary to the purposes of the anti-kickback statute. In its place, the OIG proposes to add a new safe harbor focused narrowly on point-of-sale reductions in prescription drug prices. That safe harbor would protect reductions in the price charged by a manufacturer for drug products that are payable by a Medicare Part D or Medicaid managed care organization or their PBM, but only if that price reduction meets three conditions (the “Point of Sale Safe Harbor”): First, the reduced price must be set in advance. OIG intends this to mean that the terms of the price reduction are fixed and disclosed in writing to the plan sponsor by the time of the initial purchase. Second, the sale may not involve a rebate unless the full value of the price reduction is provided to the dispensing pharmacy through chargebacks. This means that when a pharmacy dispenses a drug to a beneficiary, the total payment to the pharmacy (including the beneficiary co-payment, payment from the health plan, and any chargeback payment from the manufacturer) must be no less than the drug price agreed between the manufacturer and the health plan sponsor or their PBM. Lastly, the reduction in price must be completely applied to the price charged to the beneficiary at the time of sale. This means that the drug price to which the beneficiary’s cost-sharing obligations apply at the point of sale must be the same price (taking into account all discounts) that the manufacturer charges to the plan sponsor or their PBM. The OIG also noted that the discount safe harbor would continue to not apply if a manufacturer offered a price reduction to payors other than Medicare and Medicaid payors (i.e., situations in which parties “carve out” referrals of federal health care program beneficiaries or business from otherwise “questionable” financial arrangements). The OIG is especially concerned with these “carve out” arrangements if the offer of a discount on products would serve as an inducement for the purchase of products that are reimbursable by federal healthcare programs (e.g., offering a discount to a private health plan that is conditioned, even implicitly, on a product’s favorable formulary placement in the health payor’s Part D plans).            II.        New PBM Service Fee Safe Harbor   In addition, the OIG proposed a new safe harbor to protect compensation from pharmaceutical manufacturers to PBMs for services rendered to the manufacturers that relate to PBMs’ arrangements to provide PBM services to health plans (the “PBM Service Fee Safe Harbor”). The OIG did propose three specific conditions that must be met in order for compensation to be protected under the PBM Services Fee Safe Harbor. The first proposed condition of the safe harbor would require the PBM and the pharmaceutical manufacturer to have a written agreement that covers all of the services the PBM provides to the manufacturer in connection with the PBM’s arrangements with health plans for the term of the agreement, and specifies each of the services to be provided by the PBM and the compensation for such services. Notably, the OIG declined to propose a specific definition for PBM services but did provide a list of examples of services that it generally considers to be PBM services, including: contracting with a network of pharmacies; establishing payment levels for network pharmacies; negotiating rebate arrangements; developing and managing formularies, preferred drug lists, and prior authorization programs; performing drug utilization review; and operating disease management programs. The second proposed condition requires that compensation paid to the PBM must: (i) be consistent with fair market value in an arm’s-length transaction; (ii) be a fixed payment, not based on a percentage of sales; and (iii) not be determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of any referrals or business otherwise generated between the parties, or between the manufacturer and the PBM’s health plans, for which payment may be made in whole or in part under Medicare, Medicaid, or other Federal health care programs. Finally, the Department proposes that the PBM disclose in writing to each health plan with which it contracts at least annually, and to the Secretary upon request, the services it rendered to each pharmaceutical manufacturer that are related to the PBM’s arrangements with that health plan and the associated costs for such services. Other than the proposed revisions to the discount safe harbor, and the new PBM Service Fee Safe Harbor, the OIG did not propose to modify any other existing safe harbors which PBMs may use to protect payments from manufacturers. The OIG specifically noted the possibility that certain types of remuneration that manufacturers might pay to PBMs could continue to be protected under another existing safe harbor. For example, PBMs could presumably continue to rely on the Group Purchasing Organization (GPO) safe harbor to protect certain administrative fees paid by drug manufacturers to PBMs for GPO services, even if those fees are based on the total prescription volumes of health plans on behalf of which the PBM contracts with the manufacturers.          III.        Conclusion   The OIG proposal reflects a clear intent to substantially alter many of the current drug discount and services compensation practices among pharmaceutical manufacturers and Part D/Medicaid MCO payers and their PBMs. The proposal also reflects the OIG’s skepticism that current drug discount and compensation practices among manufacturers and PBMs are sufficiently transparent to health plans to ensure that all appropriate cost reductions and value is passed through to health plans and reflected in lower health plans costs and lower premiums for beneficiaries. The proposal to exclude drug price reductions to Part D and Medicaid MCO health plan sponsors and PBMs is proposed to be effective on January 1, 2020. The OIG is also proposing that the new Point-of-Sale Safe Harbor will take effect in a shorter time frame of sixty (60) days after the rule is finalized. Comments to the proposed rule may be submitted 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. There are a number of steps that parties to the type of arrangements covered by the proposed rule should take, including reviewing their current discount and rebate agreements to determine whether there will need to be amendments to these contracts in order to comply with the proposed rule, if it is finalized. Parties will also need to evaluate what compliance measures are needed in order to operationalize the changes in these arrangements to ensure compliance with the new safe harbor requirements. Finally, in light of the attention OIG is giving to these type of arrangements, now would be an opportune time to review arrangements for compliance with the current safe harbor restrictions, such as the carve out restriction described above. If you have further questions about this proposed rule, please contact the authors or any other health care transaction and regulatory attorneys at Dorsey & Whitney.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) has identified the anti-kickback statute (AKS) and beneficiary inducements civil monetary penalty (CMP) as potential barriers to arrangements that could promote better patient care coordination and value-based arrangements.  On August 27, 2018, the OIG published a Request for Information (RFI) seeking input from industry stakeholders on how the agency could modify existing or add new safe harbors to the AKS and exceptions to the beneficiary inducements CMP definition of “remuneration” in order to “foster arrangements that would promote care coordination and advance the delivery of value-based care, while also protecting against harms caused by fraud and abuse.”     The RFI describes how transforming the healthcare system into one that better pays for value is a key priority for HHS, and that HHS has launched what it calls a “Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care” to accelerate this transformation, with a focus of removing “unnecessary obstacles” to coordinated care. This OIG RFI is part of HHS’s Regulatory Sprint. As we described in our blog post here, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) also recently published an RFI related to reforms to the federal physician self-referral law (or “Stark Law”) as part of HHS’s Regulatory Sprint. Comments are due from stakeholders to the OIG RFI by 5 PM on October 26, 2018. Specifically, OIG is seeking input on the following topics: Promoting Care Coordination and Value-Based CareThe OIG would like information about potential arrangements that the healthcare industry is interested in pursuing, which may implicate the AKS and CMP, such as care coordination arrangements, value-based arrangements, alternative payment models, arrangements involving innovative technology and other novel financial arrangements.  The OIG requests a detailed explanation of the proposed structure and terms of the arrangements, and a description of how the arrangement promotes care coordination or value-based care.  The description should also include an explanation of how the proposed arrangement prevents potential harms such as increased costs, inappropriate utilization, poor quality of care and distorted decision-making.  For each detailed description, the OIG requests that stakeholders describe the new or modified AKS safe harbors or exceptions to the beneficiary inducements CMP definition of “remuneration” that may be necessary in order to protect the described arrangement.  The OIG is also seeking input on several key definitions that are used in the regulatory provisions related to health care delivery reform, payment reform and the AKS, such as the definition of coordinated care, care coordinator and care coordination services. Beneficiary Engagement, including Beneficiary Incentives and Beneficiary Cost-Sharing Obligations  The OIG is seeking feedback on the types of incentives that providers, suppliers and others want to provide to beneficiaries.  For each incentive, the OIG wants to know how providing the incentive would contribute to or improve quality of care, care coordination and patient engagement (including adherence programs).  The OIG published several specific questions in the RFI such as whether beneficiary incentives connected to medication adherence and medication management should be treated differently than other types of beneficiary incentives, and if so, how and why.  Further, the OIG is seeking input regarding what disclosures the offer or should be required to make to beneficiaries regarding an incentive, such as the source of the incentive, as well as input regarding the risks and benefits related to certain types of incentives such as cash equivalents, gift cards, in-kind items and services, and non-monetary remuneration.  Additionally, the OIG is also seeking input on whether the “nominal value” threshold under the CMP should be increased from $15 per item and $75 in the aggregate per patient on an annual basis, whether a similar nominal value “policy” should be applied to the AKS, and if so, how such policy would contribute to care coordination or value-based care.  The OIG is also requesting information about how reducing or eliminating patient cost-sharing obligations might improve care delivery and promote quality of care. Other Related Topics of Interest  The OIG is seeking feedback on a number of related topics of interest. These include: (a) current fraud and abuse waivers developed for purposes of carrying out the Medicare Shared Savings Program; (b) donated or subsidized cybersecurity-related items and services; and (c) new exceptions under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 related to (i) incentive payments under the ACO Beneficiary Incentive Program and (ii) telehealth technologies. The Intersection of the Stark Law and the AKSFinally, the OIG would like feedback regarding circumstances in which Stark Law exceptions and AKS safe harbors should align for purposes of the goals of the RFI and circumstances in which Stark Law exceptions related to care coordination/value-based care should not have a corresponding AKS safe harbor. The OIG noted that, where relevant, it intends to review comments submitted in response to the CMS RFI related to the Stark Law (described above), but that it urges commenters to resubmit any relevant comments to the OIG RFI to ensure that they are considered by the OIG, given the volume of questions included in the CMS RFI and the separate authorities of the OIG and CMS.   Please contact the authors or your regular attorney at Dorsey & Whitney if you want more information about the RFI process or desire to submit comments to the RFI by the October 26, 2018 deadline.  

On May 11, 2018, President Trump gave his long-awaited speech on his administration’s plan to lower prescription drug prices. In addition, the administration published its Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices and Reduce Out-of-Pocket costs. The blueprint can be found here.  The blueprint focuses on four areas for reform including strategies to: (1) improve competition; (2) increase negotiation power; (3) provide incentives for lower list prices; and (4) lowering out-of-pocket costs. Some specific strategies outlined in President’s speech and in the blueprint include: Measures to promote innovation and competition for biologics; Assessing the varying drug prices paid by foreign countries versus the United States; Encouraging sharing of samples needed for generic drug development; Creating additional efforts to promote the use of biosimilars; Reforming Medicare Part D to give plan sponsors more power when negotiating with manufacturers; Allowing additional substitution in Medicare Part D to address price increases for single-source generics; Considering requiring manufacturers to include list prices in advertisements; Considering whether to restrict the use of rebates, including reconsidering the Anti-Kickback safe harbor for drug rebates; Considering fiduciary status for Pharmacy Benefit Managers; Reforms to the 340B Drug Discount Program; Considering changes to regulations regarding drug copay discount cards; and Prohibiting Part D contracts from preventing pharmacists’ from telling patients when they could pay less out-of-packet by not using their insurance. President Trump emphasized in his address that he expects many of these changes to occur quickly, and comments are being sought on the policies outlined in the Blueprint. It is unclear how quickly, and how many, of the proposals will actually be adopted and implemented.  We are continuing to monitor these trends and any resulting changes for our clients in the pharmacy market, and we will provide updates as we have them.

All eyes are on the federal government as top officials have recently signaled upcoming actions which could impact the prices of prescription drugs. In the past two weeks, leaders from both the FDA and HHS have made statements signaling that the agencies are focused on reducing prescription drug prices. In remarks at the Food and Drug Law Institute conference held on May 3, 2018, U.S. Food and Drug Administration Chief Scott Gottlieb suggested that by reexamining the current safe harbor under the anti-kickback statute for drug rebates, list prices for drugs would be closer to negotiated prices and competition may increase. Mr. Gottlieb stated that, while “[t]here’s a range of reasons why drug prices are too high” one reason “that’s driving higher and higher list prices, is the system of rebates between payers and manufacturers. And so what if we took on this system directly, by having the federal government reexamine the current safe harbor for drug rebates under the Anti-Kickback Statute?” (The transcript of Mr. Gottlieb’s remarks can be found here). Mr. Gottlieb appears to be siding with critics of drug rebates who have argued that the practice leads to higher prices for patients because the rebates do not make their way down to patients, and instead, patients pay list prices for the drugs as they meet their out-of-pocket obligations. Mr. Gottlieb also mentioned some additional upcoming actions to reduce drug prices, including a Biosimilars Action Plan that is similar to the FDA’s Drug Competition Act Plan (DCAP); additional policies under DCAP to promote generic competition; a comprehensive framework for the regulation of gene therapy; and prioritizing the review of low competition products for generic product applications. Additionally, Mr. Gottlieb alluded to changes that may be introduced by Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, including policies that “will dismantle many of the provisions that shield parts of the drug industry from more vigorous competition” and “a series of changes to the pricing mechanism in [Medicare] Part D.” Days later, on May 9, Alex Azar told members of the American Hospital Association that “HHS is focused on solving a number of the problems that plague drug markets. These include the high list prices set by manufacturers; seniors and government programs overpaying for drugs due to the lack of the latest negotiating tools; rising out-of-pocket costs for consumers; and foreign governments free-riding off of American investments in innovation.” Mr. Azar’s full speech can be watched here. President Trump is schedule to deliver a speech on Friday, May 11, 2018 addressing the steps that the administration plans to take to address drug pricing in the United States. Mr. Azar noted that President Trump wants to go “much, much further” in addressing drug prices than the proposals initially set forth in the President’s 2019 Budget. We will continue to closely monitor these activities which may have a significant impact on all involved in the prescription drug market.

Overview On February 9, President Trump signed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (“BBA”) into law. The BBA funds the federal government through March 23 and included a bipartisan agreement to increase annual spending authority for a two-year period. In addition, the legislation contains significant policy changes impacting Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health agencies. These changes include revisions to the federal physician self-referral law (commonly referred to as the “Stark Law”), expansion of coverage for telehealth services, funding extensions of several critical Medicare programs, and changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program. A summary of some of these key health care policy changes is included below. Revisions to the Stark Law The BBA revised the Stark Law to codify certain regulatory changes that went into effect on January 1, 2016 and corresponding clarifications via preamble by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) in the 2016 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule (the “2016 Final Rule”). Specifically, the BBA revised the Stark Law to indicate the following: The writing requirement of various Stark Law compensation exceptions can be satisfied “. . . by a collection of documents, including contemporaneous documents evidencing the course of conduct between the parties involved.” Previously, CMS had only indicated in preamble text in the 2016 Final Rule that a collection of documents could be relied upon to meet the writing requirement. This was not set forth in regulatory text, however. Now that this language is in the Stark Law itself, stakeholders can take greater comfort in relying on a collection of documents to meet the writing requirement. The signature requirement of various Stark compensation exceptions is met if the parties obtain the required signatures “not later than 90 consecutive calendar days immediately following the date on which the compensation arrangement became noncompliant” and the arrangement otherwise complies with all applicable criteria. This statutory language now aligns with regulatory language in 42 C.F.R. § 411.353(g) regarding temporary noncompliance with signature requirements. That regulatory language was revised in the 2016 Final Rule to provide organizations with greater flexibility and to eliminate the prior rule that included a confusing, and often unhelpful, distinction between inadvertent noncompliance not inadvertent noncompliance. The Stark Law itself, however, has not previously referenced any provisions with respect to temporary noncompliance with the signature requirements. A holdover lease or personal service arrangement can indefinitely meet the requirements of the Stark exceptions for rental of office space, rental of equipment and personal service arrangements, respectively. However, the immediately preceding arrangement must have expired after a term of at least one year, the arrangement must have met all requirements of the applicable exception when it expired, the holdover arrangement must be on the same terms and conditions as the immediately preceding arrangement, and the holdover arrangement must continue to satisfy the conditions of the applicable exception. This statutory language now aligns with regulatory language regarding holdovers in the rental of office space, rental of equipment and personal service arrangements exceptions in 42 C.F.R. § 411.357. That regulatory language was revised in the 2016 Final Rule which previously only permitted holdovers for up to six months. The Stark Law itself, however, has not previously referenced any provisions with respect to holdover arrangements. These Stark-related provisions of the BBA used the language from Section 301 of H.R.3178, titled the “Medicare Part B Improvement Act of 2017,” which we summarized in our blog post here. This bill, which includes many other non-Stark Law-related provisions, is still pending in the Senate. We note that, while the changes to the Stark Law under the BBA were fairly inconsequential, broader Stark Law reform initiatives, including in response to the move to value-based payments under Medicare, are also currently underway. See our blog post here for further details. Increase in Civil and Criminal Penalties for Violations of Fraud and Abuse Laws The BBA significantly increased civil and criminal penalties for federal health care program fraud and abuse. Specifically, existing maximum penalties under the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (“CMPL”) for improperly filed claims (under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a–7a(a)) increased to $20,000 (from $10,000), to $30,000 (from $15,000), and to $100,000 (from $50,000). Maximum penalties under the CMPL for payments to induce reduction or limitation of services (under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a–7a(b)) increased to $5,000 where they were previously $2,000 and $10,000 where they were previously $5,000. Additionally, criminal penalties for acts involving federal health care programs under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a–7b, including but not limited to the Anti-Kickback Statute, were increased to $100,000 (from $25,000), to $20,000 (from $10,000), and to $4,000 (from $2,000). Finally, maximum sentences for felonies involving federal health care program fraud and abuse under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a–7b, including but not limited to the Anti-Kickback Statute, were increased to ten years where they were previously five years. The effective date of these increased penalties is February 9, 2018 (the date of enactment of the BBA). We note that, in 2016, penalties under the CMPL and for criminal acts involving federal health care programs were adjusted for inflation in accordance with the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (see 81 Fed. Reg. 61538 et seq. (Sept. 6, 2016)), and are adjusted on an annual basis under 45 C.F.R. § 102.3 (but have not yet been updated for 2018). So, the previous statutory maximum penalties had already been increased from the amounts set forth in the statute, and now have been increased even further. It is not clear how inflation adjustments will be applied in 2018 to the new statutory penalty maximums under these laws. Medicare Telehealth Expansion The BBA also included potentially far-reaching expansions to Medicare coverage for telehealth services. Telehealth Services for Stroke Patients Current Medicare coverage for telehealth services is limited to certain care locations that are either: (A) outside of any Metropolitan Statistical Area and designated as a rural health professional shortage area; or (B) participating in a Federal telemedicine demonstration project. The BBA eliminates this originating site requirement beginning January 1, 2019 for services to diagnose, treat, or evaluate symptoms of an acute stroke. The Medicare beneficiary receiving diagnosis, treatment, or evaluation of an acute stroke may be located at any hospital or critical access hospital, mobile stroke unit, or any other type of care site that CMS designates. Home Dialysis Assessments Similarly, beginning January 1, 2019 Medicare beneficiaries with End Stage Renal Disease (“ESRD”) may choose to receive monthly ESRD-related clinical assessments via telehealth. A face-to-face clinical assessment will be required monthly during the initial 3 months of home dialysis, and thereafter only once every 3 consecutive months. The statute also states that the provision of telehealth technologies to a Medicare beneficiary receiving home dialysis will not be considered remuneration under the beneficiary inducement statute, so long as the telehealth technologies are not offered as part of any advertisement or solicitation, are provided for purposes of furnishing telehealth services related to the beneficiary’s ESRD, and meet any other requirements CMS may adopt by regulation. The condition-based expansions in telehealth coverage for ESRD and stroke patients beyond rural health professional shortage areas signals an important recognition that service delivery via telehealth is both effective and increasingly common. Telehealth Services Provided Under Medicare Advantage Plans Beginning in plan year 2020, a Medicare Advantage Plan (“MA Plan”) may provide additional telehealth benefits to its enrollees. The telehealth benefits must be a service type available under Medicare Part B, and must be services that the MA Plan identifies as clinically appropriate to furnish using electronic information and telecommunications technology when a clinician is not at the same locations as the plan enrollee. CMS will adopt regulations regarding physician and practitioner requirements, coordination of benefits rules, and other requirements. If the MA Plan wishes to offer the service via telehealth, the MA Plan must offer the same benefit in-person and allow the enrollee to determine whether or not to receive the benefit via telehealth. The MA Plan’s bid to CMS must attribute the telehealth benefit cost to amounts attributable to the provision of benefits under the original Medicare fee-for-service program. Telehealth Services to ACO Beneficiaries Lastly, the BBA allows increased Medicare coverage for telehealth services provided to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries assigned to an Accountable Care Organization (“ACO”) participating in certain Medicare shared savings programs. After January 1, 2020, the existing Medicare telehealth geographic limitations will not apply when a physician or practitioner participating in an ACO provides telehealth services covered under Medicare to a Medicare beneficiary assigned to the ACO. The beneficiary’s home can be an originating site for the telehealth services, but the beneficiary’s home need not be located in a rural health professional shortage area. This expansion in telehealth coverage applies only to ACOs participating in a two-sided ACO model (in which the ACO shares in both savings and losses), or an ACO tested and expanded pursuant to authority granted to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. No facility fee will be paid; only the professional service is paid pursuant to this telehealth expansion. And coverage does not extend to services appropriate only for hospital inpatients. Other ACO Changes The BBA includes a provision allowing ACOs to elect to have beneficiaries assigned to the ACO prospectively rather than having Medicare beneficiaries attributed to ACOs retroactively using encounter data based upon visits for primary care services. A beneficiary may also choose to align with an ACO in which his or her main primary care provider participates. The beneficiary can continue to receive services from any provider participating in Medicare even if he or she elects to align with a specific ACO. The BBA also establishes a new voluntary ACO beneficiary incentive program that allows certain two-sided risk ACOs to offer beneficiaries a payment of up to $20 per service for receiving select primary care services. ACOs that want to offer payment to beneficiaries will have to apply for approval to participate in the incentive program with Health and Human Services. Outpatient Therapy Payments The BBA repeals annual payment caps for outpatient hospital therapy services (including physical therapy, speech-language pathology services, and occupational therapy) effective January 1, 2018. Funding Extensions The BBA includes a number of funding extensions for critical health care programs, including: Extension of CHIP funding for four more years (Fiscal Year 2024 through Fiscal Year 2027); Five-year extension of the Medicare low-volume hospital payments through September 30, 2022; Five-year extension of the Medicare-dependent hospital (MDH) program through September 30, 2022. Two-year extension of funding for quality measure endorsement, input, selection, and reporting requirements. Five-year extension with reforms of the home health rural add-on until October 1, 2022.