Choose Site
Legal Insights and Perspectives for the Healthcare Industry
We invite you to join us for a webinar series where we discuss our views on the enforcement priorities expected from the incoming Biden-Harris administration.
DOJ recently announced a massive coordinated effort with other federal agencies to charge 345 defendants allegedly responsible for over $6 billion in fraud. DOJ, OIG, FBI, DEA, and various US Attorneys’ Offices in 51 federal districts teamed up to unveil charges against more than 100 doctors, nurses, and licensed clinical personnel.
We invite you to join us on Tuesday, August 25 for our next installment of the Fast Break series, this time focused on fraud enforcement following the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
Please join us for a webinar on Wednesday, June 3 at 3:00 pm ET to discuss the issues associated with the pursuit of funds under business interruption insurance coverage and FEMA public assistance and how they may intersect with the acceptance of terms and conditions associated with the CARES Act provider relief funds.
With just days left until provider attestations are due related to acceptance of CARES Act Provider Relief Funds, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has recently been updating its FAQs, providing some additional clarity, and potentially confusion, surrounding the acceptance of Relief Funds from its initial tranche $30 billion of General Distribution payments. Attestations for the first tranche of payments on April 10 are due May 25, and HHS continues to furnish guidance regarding the details of the General Distribution Relief Fund.
In managing the quickly evolving healthcare landscape during this current crisis, healthcare companies should be wary of fraudsters who attempt to divert critical resources.
In the Care Alternatives False Claims Act (FCA) appeal, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on March 4 reversed the summary judgment granted to hospice provider Care Alternatives at the district court, disagreeing with AseraCare precedent out of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and holding that clinical disagreement alone may comprise legal falsity and is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact for the jury.
In an action especially significant to hospice providers but also other healthcare providers regarding the determinations of medical necessity for Medicare billing purposes, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and AseraCare have just agreed, following a mediation, to settle for $1 million the long-running False Claims Act qui tam litigation matter in which the United States had previously sought $200 million in liability.
In a recent analysis for Today’s General Counsel, healthcare industry partner Katie McDermott analyzes the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. AseraCare, Inc. and offers key takeaways for False Claims Act (FCA) practitioners from “this reasoned and scholarly opinion.”
The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has issued its much awaited decision in United States v. Aseracare, and for those who question how mere differences clinical opinion can ever support punitive False Claims Act (FCA) liability, it is especially informative.