Tag: OIG Advisory Opinion

Categories
Health Law Highlights

OIG Issues Favorable Advisory Opinion Involving Financial Risk Mitigation Arrangements for High-Cost Rare Disease Drug

Summary of article from Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, by David Blank:

On June 20, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued Advisory Opinion 24-04, favorably evaluating a refund and discount program for a high-cost regenerative therapy for a rare pediatric immunodeficiency disorder. The program, initiated by an international pharmaceutical manufacturer, aims to mitigate financial risks for treatment centers by offering refunds or discounts if insurers reverse coverage decisions or if the drug’s wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) increases. The OIG concluded that the program’s fraud and abuse risks are low due to its narrow scope, lack of therapeutic alternatives, and transparency measures, thus not violating the Anti-Kickback Statute or Beneficiary Inducement CMP. The discount program also meets safe harbor criteria, protecting it from AKS prosecution. This opinion provides a framework for similar programs, emphasizing the need for robust safeguards and compliance with regulatory requirements.

Categories
Health Law Highlights

HHS-OIG Determines Consultant’s Gift Cards Given to Physicians Recommending Services Do Not Implicate Anti-Kickback Statute

From Barnes & Thornburg, by Jason D. Schultz and Mary Elizabth “Lizzy” Ford:

  • The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) issued Advisory Opinion No. 23-15, permitting a consulting services company to offer gift cards as incentives for physician practices to recommend its services to other physicians. 
  • The company provides various consulting services, including workflow optimization, data analytics, electronic health record consulting, compliance monitoring, and assistance with Medicare Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) matters.
  • The proposed arrangement involves three streams of remuneration: gift cards for recommendations and successful referrals, payment for consulting services, and potential higher MIPS reimbursements for customers. 
  • HHS-OIG determined that the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) would not be implicated, as the arrangement does not involve referrals or purchases for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program. 
  • The opinion underscores that the AKS is not violated and no sanctions are imposed when the arrangement does not involve referrals or purchases related to a Federal health care program.
Categories
Health Law Highlights

OIG Approves Hospital’s Redemption Offer to Retiring Physician-Owners

From Bass, Berry & Sims, PLC, by Justin Brown, Krista Cooper, Ashley Gholston Fowler, Travis Lloyd:

  • The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued Advisory Opinion No. 23-12 on January 3, approving a plan by a physician-owned hospital to redeem the ownership interests of physicians who retire at 67 over a two-year period. This opinion provides guidance on redemption of physicians’ ownership interests in syndicated facilities like physician-owned hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers.
  • The requesting party, a limited liability partnership operating two hospitals, proposed a one-time offer to physician-owners turning 67 to redeem their units over two years to avoid a potential liquidity crunch. To accept, a physician-owner must agree to retire within six months of the first payment and certify they will not refer patients to the hospitals or other partners.
  • The partnership would redeem the units in three equal increments over the two-year period at a fair market value price. Redeemed units are offered to existing and prospective physician-owners equally, without regard to the volume or value of referrals or other business generated.
  • The OIG concluded that the arrangement posed a low risk under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, based on the fact that eligibility for the redemption offer is unrelated to the volume or value of referrals or other business generated, and the remuneration is unlikely to result in unfair competition by altering referral patterns.
  • The advisory opinion highlights the importance of objectivity and consistency in structuring redemptions and offerings. Basing redemptions and offerings on objective criteria unrelated to the volume or value of referrals or other business generated and applying these criteria consistently to all physicians reduces the risk of non-compliance with the Anti-Kickback Statute and federal physician self-referral law (Stark Law).
Categories
Health Law Highlights

Advisory Opinion 23-7 OIG Issues Favorable Opinion Regarding Proposal to Pay Bonuses to Its Employed Physicians Based on Net Profits

From Health Law Diagnosis, by Nathaniel Arden & Michael Lisitano:

  • On October 13, 2023, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) published Advisory Opinion 23-07, in which the OIG issued a favorable opinion regarding a physician group employer’s proposal to pay bonuses to its employed physicians based on net profits derived from certain procedures performed by the physicians at ambulatory surgery centers.
  • Under the proposed arrangement, the Group would pay its physician employees a bonus in addition to the physicians’ base compensation. The bonus would be equal to 30% of the Group’s net profits derived from two ambulatory surgical centers’ facility fee collections attributable to that physician’s procedures.
  • The two ambulatory surgical centers in question would be operated as “divisions” of the Group and not as separate legal entities.
  • The OIG determined that the proposed bonus arrangement is protected by the bona fide employee statutory exception and regulatory safe harbor of the Anti-Kickback Statute and would therefore, not generate prohibited remuneration.
  • The OIG differentiated similar arrangements where the ACS is owned by a separate entity. In those cases, the bona fide employee exception and safe harbor would likely not apply.
  • OIG’s analysis in the Advisory Opinion demonstrates that when properly structured to comply with statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors, certain bonus compensation arrangements of this sort may be permissible.
Categories
Health Law Highlights

Labs Take Note New OIG Opinion Highlights That Fair Market Value Per Test Payments Can Still Violate the Anti-Kickback Statute Publications

From Bass, Berry & Sims, by Jennifer E. Michael & Danielle M. Sloane:

  • The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued Advisory Opinion 23-06, wherein the OIG reiterated its longstanding position that carving out federal health care program (FHCP) business from an arrangement does not insulate the arrangement from Anti-Kickback Statute liability.
  • The arrangement would involve laboratories that conduct both the Technical Component (TC), preparing the slides, and the Professional Component (PC), interpreting the slides.
  • The Requestor would pay fair market value (FMV) for the TC services from other labs, provide the PC, and then bill commercial insurance for both the TC and PC services. The commercial insurance policies allowed this practice.
  • The arrangement would not involve any service reimbursable by FHCP, but the Requestor did expect the labs to refer FHCP services outside of this arrangement.
  • The Requestor admitted the arrangement was not commercially reasonable because it could provide TC services itself for less than FMV.
  • Despite the FMV payment and FHCP business carve-out, OIG determined that the arrangement could increase the likelihood that the labs or their referring physicians would order federally reimbursable services from Requestor.
  • Citing its Special Fraud Alert on Laboratory Payments to Referring Physicians, OIG reiterated that the Anti-Kickback Statute is violated if even one purpose of the payment is to induce referrals of FHCP business, regardless of whether that payment is FMV.
  • Finally, the proposed arrangement in Advisory Opinion 23-06 failed to meet a safe harbor only because Requestor effectively certified that the arrangement was not commercially reasonable.