We hope you were able to join us for our July Fast Break on the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's recently affirmed $114 million judgment in United States v. Mallory. If not, you missed a great session, featuring Katie McDermott and Howard Young analyzing this protracted suit filed under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA) against the owners of two specialty clinical laboratories and a contracted sales and marketing company.
We invite Health Law Scan readers to join us on Thursday, July 22 at 3:00 pm ET for our next installment of the Fast Break webinar series. For this month’s edition of Fast Break, we will be joined by healthcare litigation partners Katie McDermott and Howard Young to analyze the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's recently affirmed $114 million judgment in United States v. Mallory, a protracted suit filed under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act against the owner of a specialty clinical laboratory and the individuals who led its sales operation.
In a March 19 letter to CMS and HHS-OIG, Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) continued their oversight efforts regarding physician-owned distributorship (POD) relationships by raising questions about US Sunshine compliance by PODs. PODs involve the ownership of medical device distributorships by surgeons who use or recommend those products in their surgical procedures. The senators are critical of CMS and OIG efforts to expose and deter POD arrangements, citing long-held concerns that POD arrangements are, as the OIG has suggested in a prior Fraud Bulletin, "inherently suspect” and abusive arrangements that promote medically unnecessary services. The March letter raises an often debated question regarding POD compliance with Physician Sunshine Rules and whether CMS or the OIG have taken sufficient steps to assure transparency compliance with these particular arrangements.