Dorsey Health Law

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 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.

On March 17, 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) each issued policy statements which expand access to telehealth services for Medicare beneficiaries and permit physicians and other practitioners to reduce or waive beneficiary cost-sharing obligations for Medicare telehealth services during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Immediately following the enactment of the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, available here, CMS issued a temporary expansion of the Medicare telehealth benefit beginning as of March 6, 2020 and effective until the public health emergency declared by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ends.  The CMS policy statement can be found here. A key element of this telehealth expansion is that payment will be made for office visits and other covered Medicare telehealth services furnished to beneficiaries located in any part of the U.S.  Moreover, the CMS waiver facilitates payment for telehealth services furnished while the beneficiary is located in their home or in any care setting.   Without this emergency expansion, current Medicare rules at Social Security Act § 1834(m) generally limit coverage for telehealth services to beneficiaries located in rural areas, and only when the beneficiary is within a hospital, clinic, or other medical facility at the time of the telehealth visit. Clinicians who may offer telehealth services to Medicare beneficiaries include physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical social workers, clinical psychologists, and registered dieticians.  CMS also states that to the extent Medicare reimbursement for a telehealth service requires a prior relationship between the clinician and beneficiary, CMS will use its enforcement discretion and not audit claims submitted during the public health emergency to determine if such a prior relationship existed. The CMS waiver explicitly permits clinicians to use telephones with audio and video capabilities to furnish Medicare telehealth services during the COVID-19 public health emergency.  Together with the new waiver of certain HIPAA privacy rules (addressed in our prior blog post found here), this now will permit clinicians to conduct visits with Medicare beneficiaries using common communications tools such as personal phones, devices and computers, and common technologies such as FaceTime or Skype. CMS issued a FAQ document on this temporary and emergency telehealth benefit expansion, which can be found here. In tandem with CMS’ expansion of the Medicare telehealth benefit, the OIG issued a policy statement to address the potential anti-kickback and beneficiary inducement issues that providers may face during this emergency.  OIG states that it will not sanction physicians or other practitioners for reducing or waiving cost-sharing obligations that a beneficiary may owe for telehealth services furnished during the COVID-19 public health emergency and furnished in accordance with the then-applicable Medicare rules (which would include the CMS telehealth benefit expansion during the emergency).  Normally, the routine reduction or waiver of Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing obligations would implicate the federal anti-kickback statute and the civil monetary penalty law prohibiting beneficiary inducement. Clinicians are not obligated to reduce or waive Medicare beneficiary coinsurance and deductible obligations, but may do so in accordance with the OIG policy statement without risk of anti-kickback or beneficiary inducement enforcement.  Moreover, the OIG states that it will not view providing future services that may occur as a result of any free telehealth services to, by itself, be evidence of beneficiary inducement. The OIG Policy Statement can be found here. These CMS and OIG issuances are intended to give providers added flexibility to combat the COVID-19 emergency.  Hospitals and other providers should consider how the temporary Medicare telehealth expansion and the flexibility in dealing with beneficiary cost-sharing can help them keep clinicians and beneficiaries safer, alleviate some of the burden on provider staff and space, and help reduce the spread of COVID-19. If you have any questions, please contact the author or any member of Dorsey’s healthcare transactions and regulations practice group.

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.

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 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 January 5, 2018, the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) released a favorable Advisory Opinion 17-09 that addresses Section 1128A(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (the “Gainsharing CMP”) and Section 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act (the “Anti-Kickback Statute”) with respect to a cost-reduction arrangement (the “Arrangement) between a medical center (“Medical Center”) and designated surgeons. The Arrangement called for the Medical Center to share with the designated surgeons a percentage of the Medical Center’s cost savings as a result of the cost-reduction measures agreed to by the parties. This advisory opinion is the first gainsharing advisory opinion issued since the passage of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (“MACRA”) in 2015.  MACRA clarified that the Gainsharing CMP was only violated if the payment to the physician is for the purpose of reducing medically necessary services. However, the clarification under MACRA does not appear to have changed the OIG’s analysis significantly.  Gainsharing arrangements have long been considered suspicious by the OIG; although numerous gainsharing arrangements had been reviewed in OIG Advisory Opinions, and have been found to contain enough mitigating factors to not warrant sanctions.  The OIG has analyzed these arrangements under the Gainsharing CMP and the Anti-kickback Statute, and has expressed concern that gainsharing arrangements could result in: (i) stinting on patient care; (ii) cherry picking healthy patients and steering sicker (and more costly) patients to hospitals that do not offer such arrangements; (iii) payments to induce patient referrals; and (iv) unfair competition among hospitals that offer incentive compensation programs in order to foster physician loyalty to attract more referrals.  This advisory opinion joins the list of previous advisory opinions in which the OIG has analyzed detailed facts and circumstances about a proposed gainsharing arrangement with physicians, and has approved the arrangement because it included certain criteria for minimizing the risk of fraud and abuse.  Advisory Opinion 17-09 is helpful to hospitals and physicians that are interesting in entering into gainsharing arrangements because it provides recent insight into the OIG’s perspective on the important factors to include in these arrangements. The Gainsharing CMP prohibits a hospital from knowingly making payments, directly or indirectly, to a physician to induce the physician to reduce or limit medically necessary services to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries who are under the physician’s direct care. The Anti-Kickback Statute makes it a criminal offense to knowingly and willfully offer, pay, solicit, or receive any remuneration to induce or reward referrals of items or services reimbursable by a Federal health care program. Here, Advisory Opinion 17-09 addresses an Arrangement between a Medical Center and spine surgeons (“Neurosurgeons”) who are part of a larger multi-specialty physician group (“Group”). In order to participate in the Arrangement, physicians have to be in the Group and be a Neurosurgeon. In total, four physicians were identified as eligible for participation in the Arrangement. All of the Neurosurgeons have medical staff privileges at the Medical Center and all of the Medical Center’s spinal surgeries are performed by the Neurosurgeons. In an effort to reduce costs, a subsidiary of the Medical Center (the “Program Administrator”) conducted a historical practices study of spinal fusion surgeries performed by the Neurosurgeons and identified 34 cost-saving opportunities; including things such as using product standardization. Under the Arrangement, the Medical Center will pay the Neurosurgeons a share of the three-years of cost-savings attributed to the changes the Neurosurgeons make when selecting products to use during the spinal fusion surgeries, among other cost-savings measures. The payment will be distributed to the Neurosurgeons on a per capita basis and the amount allocated to each Neurosurgeon will be subject to a long-standing, pre-existing provision in the Group’s operating agreement that requires the Group to withhold a percentage of collections earned by all physicians for their personally performed services to fund the Group’s administrative and recruitment expenses. The Arrangement includes safeguards such as monitoring and documentation requirements, which are intended to maintain quality of care and protect against inappropriate reduction in services to patients. The parties certified that the cost-savings recommendations will not reduce or limit medically necessary services for patients. Anti-Kickback Analysis: In reaching a favorable opinion, the OIG specifically noted the following safeguards are present in the Arrangement which limit the risk under the Anti-Kickback Statute that the payments to the Neurosurgeons would induce or reward referrals or attract referring physicians: (1) the payment of the cost savings on a per capita (as opposed to an individual) basis reduces the risk the Arrangement creates for any one Neurosurgeon to generate disproportionate cost savings; (2) the potential savings are capped based on the number of spinal fusion surgeries performed by the Neurosurgeons on Federal health care program beneficiaries in the relevant base year, thus limiting the Neurosurgeons’ incentives to increase their referrals to the Medical Center; (3) the aggregate payment to the Neurosurgeons will not exceed 50 percent of the projected cost savings estimated at the beginning of the term of the Arrangement, which reduces the risk of incentivizing referrals; (4) the Program Administrator collects and reviews data on patient severity, age, and payor of the spinal surgeries to confirm historically consistent selection of patients, to prevent data-skewing based on selecting healthier patients; (5) the group of Neurosurgeons retains the portion of the savings, rather than the individual physicians, and the amount retained must be used exclusively for the group’s long-standing formula set forth in their governance documents related to payment of administrative and recruitment expenses, which reduces the risk of inducing or rewarding referrals from non-participating physicians or any particular physician; (6) an annual rebasing method removes savings from prior years and ensures that the performance year savings are calculated only as compared to the most recent base year therefore preventing improper duplicate payments that could constitute unlawful kickbacks; (7) evidence-based medical reviews were completed in order to establish clinical guidelines and evaluations related to the recommended cost-saving measures. Following these reviews, the Requester certified that the recommendations may require additional training for the Neurosurgeons, or changes in their clinical practices/processes, which provided support for the compensation to the Neurosurgeons; (8) the Arrangement ties the incentives to the actual, verifiable cost savings attributable to each recommendation implemented during spinal fusion surgeries, which creates transparency that reduces the risk of the Medical Center accounts being manipulated to “game the system”; (9) Neurosurgeons continue to make patient-by-patient determinations as to the most appropriate device or supply and continue to have access to the same selection of devices and supplies that they had prior to the Arrangement; and (10) no neurosurgeons from other physician groups participate in the Arrangement, thus the risk is reduced that the Medical Center would use the Arrangement to attract others from competitor hospitals to perform surgeries at the Medical Center. Gainsharing CMP: With respect to its analysis of the Arrangement under the Gainsharing CMP, the OIG stated that it relied on the truthfulness of the Requestor’s certification that none of the cost-saving recommendations in the Arrangement will reduce or limit medically necessary services for patients, and that the Program Administrator monitors any changes in cost, resource utilization or quality of patient care; and reports quarterly to a Program Oversight Committee, which is comprised of representatives from the Medical Center, an administrative subsidiary of the Medical Center, the Program Administrator and the Neurosurgeons. The OIG would not opine on whether the recommended cost-saving measures would reduce only non-medically necessary services, but the OIG did evaluate the Requestor’s methodology for developing the recommendations, monitoring safeguards and calculating the savings, and the OIG concluded the methodology was reasonable. The OIG concluded that together, the reasonableness of the methodology and the certifications from the Requestor reduced the risk appropriately that the payments to the Neurosurgeons would limit/reduce medically necessary services to Medicare and Medicaid patients. For more information about gainsharing arrangements, contact your Dorsey & Whitney attorney.    

On September 7, 2017, the OIG posted an advisory opinion regarding a retail pharmacy chain’s proposal to extend to federal health care program beneficiaries the option to participate in a paid membership program that includes discounts on certain prescriptions and clinical services offered by the retail chains’ pharmacies and in-store clinics.  Presently, the pharmacy chain’s program excludes federal health care program beneficiaries.  The OIG found that the proposed program would meet the retailer reward exception to the definition of remuneration under the Beneficiary Inducement law, and that the proposed program would pose a minimal risk of fraud and abuse under the Anti-Kickback Statute.   The pharmacy chain’s proposed membership program included the following benefits:   Members of the program would have access to discounts on the pharmacies’ retail prices for specific items that the Member paid for entirely out-of-pocket (ex. generic drugs, pet prescriptions, nebulizer devises, blood glucose testing meters, immunizations, and other prescriptions listed on the pharmacy membership benefit program’s formulary); Members would have access to a 10 percent discount on clinical services paid for out-of-pocket (ex. physicals, immunizations, health screenings); Members could earn a 10 percent credit toward future eligible retail purchases when they purchased certain company-branded products and in-store photo finishing.  The credit could not be used to purchase prescriptions, immunizations, clinic services, alcohol, gift cards, postage stamps, pre-paid cards, milk products, tobacco products, or for retail pharmacy or clinic cost-sharing amounts. The OIG noted that the vast majority of products and services for which Members could earn and redeem credits are not federally reimbursable.   Members could enroll in the program either online through the company’s website or in person. The membership would be open to the general public. The only requirements for membership are a payment of an annual membership fee, that the Member be over 18 years of age, and that the Member provide certain personal information such as name, date of birth, address and phone number.   In order for federal health care program beneficiaries to access the discounts, the Members would need to pay for such items and services out-of-pocket (if the Member’s health plan or prescription plan covers an item that the Member would like to purchase through the retailer’s membership program, the Member would have to relinquish his or her health or prescription plan’s coverage for that particular purchase and instead, pay for the item out-of-pocket). The proposed membership program’s terms and conditions specifically state that Members are entirely responsible for all charges for discounted items or services they purchase through the program and that there would be no additional incentives given to Members for filling or transferring a new prescription to the pharmacy. The proposed program would allow for Medicare beneficiaries to submit claims for drugs purchased out-of-pocket while the beneficiary is in the Part D coverage gap, which would count toward a Medicare Part D beneficiary’s true out-of-pocket cost calculation.   Based on these facts, the OIG concluded that the proposed arrangement would implicate both the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Beneficiary Inducement CMP because the discounted items, services and earned credits could induce a beneficiary to select the retailer for his or her federally reimbursable items or services.  However, the OIG found that inclusion of federal health care program beneficiaries into the paid membership program would not constitute grounds for civil money penalties under the Beneficiary Inducement law, and that the OIG would not impose administrative sanctions under the Anti-Kickback Statute because the program:   Would satisfy the requirements of the exception to the definition of remuneration related to retailer rewards under the Beneficiary Inducement law. Specifically, the OIG noted that: the membership is the equivalent of a “coupon” under the retailer rewards exception; the earned credits would constitute a “rebate” under the same exception; the membership is available to the general public on equal terms; and the offer or transfer of rewards would not be tied to the provision of any other items or services that are federally reimbursed.  The retailer specifically certified that its pharmacies and clinics would not submit a claim to a Federal healthcare program or to any other 3rd party payor for any of the items or services purchased at a discount under the membership program, and that the Members would be entirely responsible for all charges.  Further, the OIG noted that with respect to the credits, the membership program did not have a different mechanism for accumulating or redeeming credits between items and services that are, and are not, covered by Federal health care programs.  Also, the vast majority of items and services for which a Member could earn and redeem a credit are not federally reimbursable.  Of note, the OIG stated that if the Member could only earn or redeem (or could preferentially accumulate or use) credits based on the purchase of federally reimbursable items or services, the OIG would reach a different conclusion; and Would pose a low risk of fraud and abuse under the Anti-Kickback Statute because, in addition to the positive factors described under the OIG’s analysis under the Beneficiary Inducement law, the arrangement also does not include any features to specifically steer beneficiaries to the retail pharmacies or clinics or to purchase federally reimbursable items or services. It was noted that the membership program included a broad range of inventory, including groceries and toiletries.  The Members would not be required to purchase prescriptions, immunizations, clinic services or any other services that are federally reimbursable.  Instead, the Members would earn credits through other purchases under the membership program.  Also, there would not be any offers related to transferring prescriptions or filling them at the retailer, or receiving clinic services at the retailer’s stores. Further, the OIG pointed out that the arrangement would be unlikely to result in overutilization or otherwise increase costs to Federal health care programs because the Member would already have obtained a written order for a prescription from his or her prescriber, and, regardless, the pharmacies would not submit claims for the prescriptions purchased under the membership program to any Federal health care program.  Further, the arrangement would not involve a waiver or reduction in any cost sharing amounts incurred by Federal health care program beneficiaries, and there would only be “very limited exceptions” in which Members would earn/redeem credits on items that would be paid for by Federal health care programs.   As always, OIG opinions are only applicable to the requesting individual or entity and cannot be relied on by any other individual or entity. However, this opinion provides guidance on the OIG’s current stance on pharmacy member benefit programs that include federal health care beneficiaries. We recommend organizations looking to extend their member benefit programs to include federal health care beneficiaries contact their legal representatives to help structure the program in accordance with federal and state statutes and regulations.   The full advisory opinion can be found here.

Compliance programs are an important tool for health care providers.  Compliance programs help to prevent fraud, waste and abuse, create a mechanism for catching problems early, and effective compliance programs can also provide the basis for a penalty reduction under the US Sentencing Guidelines if an entity is ever faced with sentencing for a criminal violation. It can be difficult to know whether your current compliance program in place is effective since no agency has published a template that will work in all cases.  Instead, the effectiveness of a compliance program is to be evaluated based on the size, operations, resources and risks facing each unique organization.  While an individualized assessment is still necessary, and no “one size fits all” program is available, both the Department of Justice and the Office of Inspector General (along with the Health Care Compliance Association) have recently published guidance to help organizations measure the effectiveness of their compliance programs. The DOJ guidance (available here https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/page/file/937501/download) is not specific to healthcare; however, it does apply to health care organizations.  It provides a checklist of questions for organizations to answer in the process of evaluating their ethics and compliance programs. The OIG guidance (available here https://oig.hhs.gov/compliance/101/files/HCCA-OIG-Resource-Guide.pdf) was published with health care organizations in mind.  It is longer and provides more than 400 ideas of  “what to measure” and  “how to measure” each of the seven elements of an effective healthcare compliance program.  The Inspector General reiterated that no organization is expected to adopt all or even a large number of the suggestions in the guidance document at any one time.  Instead, organizations are encouraged to select the measures that are applicable to them, based on their unique needs, resources and risks, as part of their ongoing compliance program assessment. These two new guidance documents provide valuable and practical assistance to compliance professionals and counsel who work continuously to evaluate and improve compliance programs for organizations in the health care industry.

On February 17, 2017 the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) posted a Drug Pricing and Reimbursement Web portfolio on its website that, according to the OIG announcement, “pulls together the HHS OIG’s body of work since 2010 as well as other relevant items that relate to drug pricing and reimbursement in HHS programs.” The portfolio showcases the OIG’s work in the drug pricing and reimbursement realm as drug pricing continues to be a political hot topic. Overall, the portfolio includes OIG’s reports; implemented and unimplemented recommendations; summaries of civil monetary penalties and assessments against individuals and entities for prohibited conduct related to reporting requirements required under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; and OIG’s advisory statements and bulletins on a variety of drug pricing and reimbursement topics. The portfolio should be monitored by plan sponsors, pharmaceutical companies, pharmacy benefit managers, and pharmacies, and others involved in drug distribution as a convenient location to find information published by the OIG that will impact their business. For example, the portfolio outlines future OIG report topics and their expected publication dates, such as the expected 2017 report on the quality of sponsor data used in calculating coverage gap discounts. Additionally, those in the industry can monitor and review OIG recommendations to HHS that, while unimplemented, can shed light on potential future enforcement areas.

As of January 6, 2017, final rules published by the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (the “OIG”) implementing certain exceptions to the Civil Monetary Penalty law (“CMP”) took effect. The CMP rules were published alongside final rules regarding safe harbors to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), about which more can be learned in our earlier blog post here. The final rule as published in the Federal Register is available here. As a refresher, the CMP, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a, prohibits inducements in the form of offering or transferring remuneration to beneficiaries of Medicare and State health care programs if the offeror knows or should know the inducement is likely to influence such beneficiary to order or receive a reimbursable service from a particular provider, practitioner, or supplier. It is important to note, and in fact the final rule goes out of its way to remind us, that activities potentially implicating the CMP and AKS may overlap, and meeting a CMP exception does not necessarily mean that AKS risk is mitigated. The final rules amend the CMP’s definition of “remuneration,” codified at 42 C.F.R. § 1003.110, by interpreting and incorporating statutory exceptions. The exceptions interpreted and incorporated are: (i) copayment reductions for certain hospital outpatient department services; (ii) certain remuneration that poses a low risk of harm and promotes access to care; (iii) coupons, rebates, or other retailer reward programs that meet specified requirements; (iv) certain remuneration to financially needy individuals; and (v) copayment waivers for the first fill of generic drugs. While all of the exceptions merit attention, this blog post specifically focuses on certain changes and clarifications to exceptions (ii), (iii), and (v), as listed above. Low risk of harm and promotes access to care: In the final rule, the OIG expanded its interpretation of “care” beyond “medically necessary health care items and services,” as it was in the proposed rules, to the broader “items and services payable under Medicare or State health care programs for beneficiaries who receive them” in recognition of the fact that nonclinical items and services can improve health. Additionally, responding to various comments, the OIG pushed back multiple times on the idea that different standards should apply under this exception to different types of entities, such as risk-bearing providers and suppliers, ACOs, or pharmacy programs (though the OIG did recognize that the structure of arrangements with risk-bearing providers and suppliers and ACOs may make it easier for them to meet the same standards); Coupons, rebates, or other retailer reward programs meeting specified requirements: The OIG maintained its interpretation that a “retailer” is an entity that sells items directly to consumers and does not include individuals or entities that primarily provide services. The OIG clarified in comments that a pharmacy is considered a retailer whether it is a “big box” pharmacy or a smaller pharmacy, stating that, even if a smaller pharmacy provides services, it does not “primarily” provide services. In addition, entities such as a hospital system with a separate retail component (e.g., a pharmacy) may be considered a retailer with respect to a program specific to that retail component. The OIG also clarified that the concept of “other rewards” should be interpreted broadly, provided that it meets other requirements of this exception (i.e., it is a retailer reward, offered or transferred to the public on equal terms, and not tied to other reimbursable items or services). However, “other rewards” could not include a copayment waiver, as it fails to meet the requirement that the rewards not be tied to other reimbursable items or services; and Copayment waivers for the first fill of generic drugs: While otherwise finalizing this rule unchanged, OIG clarified that, because the final rule was published after the deadline for submission to CMS of benefit plan packages for coverage year 2017, the exception for copayment waivers would be applicable to coverage years beginning on or after January 1, 2018. The final rule also adds “copayment” to the definition of “remuneration” for the sake of consistency with other proposed and finalized text and announces an increase in the limits for gifts of nominal value that do not require an exception under the CMP, from $10 for an individual gift and $50 annual aggregate per patient, to $15 and $75, respectively.

On January 6, 2017, two new safe harbors to the federal anti-kickback statute (the “AKS”) will become effective pursuant to a final rule published by the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (the “OIG”) on December 7, 2016. The final rule also codifies safe harbors for certain AKS exceptions and makes a technical correction to the existing safe harbor for referral services.  The OIG is authorized to promulgate safe harbors to protect various business arrangements from criminal prosecution under the AKS even though the arrangements potentially may be capable of inducing referrals of federal health care program business.  The final rule as published in the Federal Register is available here. New Safe Harbors Created The two new safe harbors share a focus on making medical-related transportation more affordable. The first new safe harbor protects reductions or waivers of a federal health care program beneficiary’s obligation to pay copayment, coinsurance or deductible (“cost-sharing”) amounts for emergency ambulance services provided by a state-, municipality- or tribal-owned ambulance supplier and paid for under a fee-for-service payment system if specified requirements are satisfied (e.g., the reduction or waiver must be offered on a uniform basis to all residents, tribal members or transported individuals). See 42 C.F.R. § 1001.952(k)(4).  The second new safe harbor protects free or discounted local transportation provided by an “eligible entity” (i.e., any individual or entity, except for individuals or entities that primarily supply health care items) to federal health care beneficiaries in the form of a “shuttle service” if certain conditions are met. See 42 C.F.R. § 1001.952(bb). AKS Exceptions Codified as Safe Harbors The final rule also protects certain pharmacy reductions or waivers of cost-sharing amounts (see 42 C.F.R. § 1001.952(k)(3)), remuneration between a federally qualified health center (“FQHC”) and a Medicare Advantage (“MA”) organization and (see 42 C.F.R. § 1001.952(z)), and discounts by manufacturers on drugs furnished to beneficiaries under the Medicare Coverage Gap Discount Program (see 42 C.F.R. § 1001.952(aa)). Focus on Safe Harbor for Pharmacy Cost-Sharing Waivers While all of the safe harbors are noteworthy, some additional commentary on the scope and requirements of the safe harbor for pharmacy cost-sharing waivers is warranted. First, the scope of the final rule’s pharmacy cost-sharing waiver safe harbor includes both the Medicare Part D program and the Medicaid program, whereas the similar AKS statutory exception covers only Medicare Part D. Second, the OIG clarified in its comments to the final rule that the safe harbor requirement that the reduction or waiver not be part of an “advertisement or solicitation” would be violated by a pharmacy posting information on its Web site regarding the reduction or wavier, but generally would not be violated by responding to an inquiry from a particular patient in person. Third, with respect to the safe harbor requirement that the reduction or waiver not be “routine,” the OIG stated in its comments that what is “routine” depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case but that giving a reduction or waiver could be common enough without being automatic and still be routine. Fourth, the OIG declined to specify any particular method of determining whether a beneficiary has a “financial need,” permitting pharmacies flexibility, by way of examples, to use a multiple of the poverty guidelines or to use a combination of the poverty guidelines plus family medical expenses. The key to satisfying the requirement is that the pharmacy must apply a reasonable determination method of financial need uniformly. And while not requiring a written policy describing the pharmacy’s determination method, the OIG did say that having such a written policy, along with evidence that the policy was followed, would be “useful” in asserting the safe harbor’s protection. Fifth, if a patient is not in financial need then the pharmacy must make “reasonable collection efforts” before waiving the cost-sharing amount. The OIG recognized in its comments that the amount of the copayment or the historical inability to collect from a particular patient might be factors in a pharmacy’s decision regarding what collection efforts to take. However, a preemptive decision by a pharmacy not to request payment from, or not to pursue any collection efforts regarding, a particular patient would not satisfy this requirement. Parties intending to fit within a particular safe harbor are advised to review all of the applicable requirements. In addition, as illustrated by the discussion of the safe harbor for pharmacy cost-sharing waivers above, reviewing the OIG’s responses to comments in the final rule can help interpret the regulatory language.