healthcare

The False Claims Act after ACA

Image

Healthcare providers are confronted with a heighted regulatory landscape since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. Congress has been patently devoted to prosecuting provider practices that conspicuously overbill Medicare or Medicaid. The ability to prosecute providers under the False Claims Act has significantly changed in recently years including recent legislation under the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 and the formation by the Department of Justice and Health and Human Services of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (“HEAT”). On the State level, Section 6031 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 created a financial incentive for States to establish legislation to prosecute individuals or entities who submit false or fraudulent claims to the Medicaid program.

In addition to these dramatic changes in the law, language in the Affordable Care Act ushered in a new era of enforcement against fraud, waste and abuse. This new era includes enhanced use of technology such as sophisticated data mining, and other fraud detection methods which has resulted in the Federal government becoming more efficient in identifying false claims. Nevertheless, the government still greatly depends on qui tam relators (private citizens who initiate false claim actions and report such claims to the government for investigation and possible prosecution). Provider liability under the Act can be massive, with penalties between $5,500 to $11,000 per false claim, plus three times the total loss to the government. Qui tam relators, can receive fifteen to thirty percent of the total recovery. Moreover, recent amendments to the False Claims Act enacted under the Affordable Care Act has widened the scope of potential claims that can be successfully initiated and sustained by qui tam relators, especially given the whistleblower protections afforded to these potential claimants. This means, in essence that there is a more definite probability of claims being initiated by past and present employees of health practices under the False Claims Act.

In the last couple of years, Congress has increased funding as part of its committed effort to fight fraud, waste and abuse in the Federal healthcare programs. Approximately $350 million through 2020 has been allocated under the Affordable Care Act toward investigation and prosecution of fraud, waste and abuse. To be found liable under the act, no proof of specific intent is required. Providers can be found liable under the act for knowingly making a false statement to have a Medicare or Medicaid claim paid or approved. The term “knowingly” can mean that the provider or entity acted in deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard of the truth of information submitted to receive payment. If a provider is accused of knowingly submitting a false claim, the provider could see all of  their Medicare and Medicaid payments for care suspended by CMS if there is deemed to be a “credible allegation of fraud” as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services.

What this means is that provider practices should be diligent in their billing practices and institute and evaluate periodically proper controls regarding their revenue cycle. The penalties are too severe not to have proper policies and procedures in place.  In addition, provider practices regardless of size should implement a compliance program in response to these changes in the law and heightened government enforcement actions.  For more information, please contact our firm at info@scottpractice.com.

Private Benefit and Nonprofit Executive Compensation

Image

We hope to have several segments which address Tax-Exempt Compliance with applicable IRS regulations and the Internal Revenue Code.

A 501(c )(3) public charity receives tax exempt status upon demonstrating that it is organized and operates for a public purpose under 501(c )(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.  To maintain tax exemption, tax-exempt organizations must follow all laws and regulations pertaining to tax-exempt organizations.  The law provides that engaging in certain activities will jeopardize a nonprofit organization’s tax exemption.  The focus of this article is on a salient issue concerning executive compensation.  Can a nonprofit organization lose its tax-exempt status due to unreasonable compensation?  The answer is yes.

Briefly, the law provides that no part of a tax-exempt organization’s net earnings may inure to the benefit of an insider. An insider is a person who has a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization such as an officer, director, or a key employee.  The key here is net earnings of the organization privately benefited a key employee of the nonprofit organization.  Authorizing key employees, such as an Executive Director, Chief Executive or other key officers, to receive unreasonable compensation put the nonprofit’s tax-exemption at risk.  In other words, if compensation is given to any officer, director or key employee it must be reasonable or it can be deemed to be a private inurement jeopardizing the organizations 501(c )(3) status.  What is reasonable compensation depends of the totality of the circumstances.  Comparability data is one means of substantiating the reasonableness of executive compensation.  However, there are caveats with respect to its use, such as whether the data provides an accurate comparison.  The Exempt Organization section of the IRS has two useful articles on its Website on nonprofit compensation.  If you have difficulty finding them, you can e-mail us at info@scottpractice.com and will be happy to assist you.

Nonprofits Be Prepared to Protect PII

detective

There is a rising effort to protect personally identifiable information (PII).  For instance, the OMB provided new guidance under 2 CFR Chapter Part 200 which requires entities receiving federal grant funds to take reasonable measures to safeguard such information.  The new reforms define PII as information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual’s identity, either alone or when combined with other personal or identifying information that can be linked to a specific individual.  However, there is no silver bullet with respect to whether any given information is in fact PII. Certain instances will require a case-by-case analysis based on the facts and circumstance of the situation. All in all, these newer requirements on grantees may require grantees to implement tighter controls.