Contact Us
Categories
- Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights
- Medical Residents
- EMTALA
- FDA
- Reproductive Rights
- Roe v. Wade
- SCOTUS
- Medical Spas
- medical billing
- No Surprises Act
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Workplace health
- Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act
- Code Enforcement
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employment Law
- FFCRA
- CARES Act
- Nursing Home Reform Act
- COVID-19
- SB 150
- Acute Care Beds
- Clinical Support
- Coronavirus
- Emergency Medical Services
- Emergency Preparedness
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- KBML
- medication assisted therapy
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Legislative Developments
- Corporate
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Employee Contracts
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Opioid Epidemic
- Sexual Harassment
- Health Resource and Services Administration
- Litigation
- Medical Malpractice
- House Bill 333
- Senate Bill 79
- locum tenens
- Senate Bill 4
- Physician Prescribing Authority
- Chronic Pain Management
- HIPAA
- Prescription Drugs
- "Two Midnights Rule"
- 340B Program
- Hospice
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Skilled Nursing Facilities (“SNFs”)
- Uncategorized
- Drug Screening
- EHR Systems
- Electronic Health Records (“EHR")
- ICD-10
- Mental Health Care
- Primary Care Physicians ("PCPs")
- Urinalysis
- Accountable Care Organizations (“ACO”)
- Affordable Insurance Exchanges
- Anti-Kickback Statute
- Certificate of Need ("CON")
- Compliance
- Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- Federally Qualified Health Centers (“FQHCs”)
- Fee for Service
- Fraud
- Health Care Fraud
- HIPAA Risk Assessment
- HPSA
- KASPER
- Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure
- Kentucky’s Department for Medicaid Services
- Office for Civil Rights ("OCR")
- Office of Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (OIG)
- Part D
- Pharmacists
- Physician Assistants
- Qui Tam
- Rural Health Centers (“RHCs”)
- Stark Laws
- Telehealth
- Affordable Care Act
- Alternative Payment Models
- American Telemedicine Association (“ATA”)
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”)
- Charitable Hospitals
- Data Breach
- Electronic Protected Health Information (ePHI)
- False Claims Act
- Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act)
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)
- Health Professional Shortage Area ("HPSA")
- Hospitals
- HRSA
- Kentucky Board of Nursing
- Limited Services Clinics
- Medicaid
- Medical Staff By-Laws
- Medically Underserved Area ("MUA")
- Medicare
- Mid-Level Practitioners
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”)
- Rural Health Clinic
- Telemedicine
- APRNs
- Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)
- Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (“HEAT”)
- Hydrocodone
- Kentucky Pharmacists Association
- Qualified Health Care Centers (“FQHC”)
- United States ex. Rel. Kane v. Continuum Health Partners
- Webinar
- Agreed Order
- Chain and Organization System (“PECOS”)
- Chiropractic services
- Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”)
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California
- Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA")
- Emergency Rooms
- Enrollment
- Hinchy v. Walgreen Co.
- Jimmo v. Sebelius
- Kentucky Senate Bill 7
- Maintenance Standard
- Medicare Part D
- Minors
- Ophthalmological services
- Overpayments
- Physician Compare website
- Re-validation
- Texting
- Vitas Innovative Hospice Care
- 2014 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (“PFS”)
- 501(c)(3)
- Affinity Health Plan
- All-Payer Claims Database ("APCD")
- Appeal
- Cadillac tax
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Chronic Care Management
- Community health needs assessment (“CHNA”)
- Compliance Officer
- Compounding
- CPR
- Denied Claims
- Dispenser
- Drug Quality and Security Act (“DQSA”)
- Essential Health Benefits
- Federation of State Medical Boards (“FSMB”)
- Food and Drug Administratio
- Form 4720
- Grace Period
- HealthCare.gov
- House Bill 3204
- ICD-9
- Individual mandate
- Kentucky Medical Practice Act
- Kindred v. Cherolis
- Kynect
- Long-term care communities
- Mobile medical applications ("apps")
- Model Policy for the Appropriate Use of Social Media and Social Networking in Medical Practice (“Model Policy”)
- National Drug Code ("NDC")
- National Institutes of Health
- New England Compounding Center ("NECC")
- Nonprofit hospitals
- Outsourcing facility
- Physician Payments
- Ping v. Beverly Enterprises
- Power of Attorney ("POA")
- Prescriber
- Qualified Health Plan ("QHP")
- Social Media
- Spousal coverage
- State Health Plan
- Sustainable Growth Rate (“SGR”)
- UPS
- "Plan of Correction"
- Advanced Practice Registered Nurses
- Arbitration
- Audit
- Business Associate Agreements
- Business Associates
- Call Coverage
- Condition of Participation ("CoP")
- Daycare centers
- Decertification
- Department of Medicaid Services’ (“DMS”)
- Division of Regulated Child Care
- Doe v. Guthrie Clinic
- EHR vendor
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- ERISA
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- False Billings
- Group Purchasing Organizations ("GPO")
- Health Professional Shortage Areas (“HPSA”)
- Health Reform
- Home Health Prospective Payment System
- Home Medical Equipment Providers
- Hospitalists
- House Bill 104
- Inpatient Care
- Intermediate Sanctions Agreement
- Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange
- Kentucky House Bill 217
- Licensed practical nurses (LPN)
- Licensure Requirements
- List of Excluded Individuals and Entities
- LLC v. Sutter
- Long-Term Care Providers ("LTC")
- Low-utilization payment adjustment ("LUPA")
- Meaningful use incentives
- Medicare Administrative Coordinators
- Medicare Benefit Policy Manual
- Medicare Shared Saving Program (MSSP)
- Network provider agreement
- Nonroutine medical supplies conversion factor (“NRS”)
- Nurse practitioners (NP)
- Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”)
- Part A
- Part B
- Patient Autonomy
- Patient Privacy
- Payors
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Service Entities
- Physician Recruitment
- Physician shortages
- Provider Self Disclosure Protocol
- Quality reporting
- Registered nurses (RN)
- Residency Programs
- Self-Disclosure Protocol
- Senate Bill 39
- State Medicaid Expansion
- Statement of Deficiency ("SOD")
- Trade Association Group Coverage
- Upcoding
- “Superuser”
- Autism/ASD
- Center for Disease Control
- Compliance Programs
- Critical Access Hospitals (“CAHs”)
- Essential Health Benefits (“EHBs”)
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS)
- Kentucky House Bill 159
- Kentucky Primary Care Centers (“PCCs”)
- Managed Care Organizations (“MCOs”)
- Medicare Audit Improvement Act of 2012
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- Recovery Audit Contractors (“RAC”)
- Senate Finance Committee Report
- Small Business Health Options Program (“SHOP”)
- Sunshine Act
- Abuse and Waste
- Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan programs (“CO-OPS”)
- Employee Agreement
- Free Conference Committee Report
- Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program
- House Bill 1
- House Bill 4
- Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services
- Kentucky Health Care Co-Op
- Kentucky Health Cooperative (“KYHC”)
- Kentucky “Pill Mill Bill”
- Pain Management Facilities
- Health Care Law
- Health Insurance
- Healthcare Regulation
McBrayer Blogs
Implied False Certification - Supreme Court Upholds New False Claims Act Standard
While the news for healthcare practitioners regarding regulatory liability under Federal law had largely been positive as of late, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a new standard of liability under the False Claims Act in the case of Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar. The standard of liability approved by SCOTUS is referred to as “implied false certification” and the implications for healthcare providers are numerous.
Under implied false certification, the theory is that, by submitting a claim for payment, the claimant is impliedly in compliance with all relevant laws, regulations, contract requirements, etc., that are material conditions of payment. Failure to disclose lack of compliance renders claims submitted with respect to these regulatory conditions false or fraudulent under this theory.
The tragic facts of the case provide some context for the court’s holding. A teenage Medicaid beneficiary receiving counseling services at a mental health facility had an adverse reaction to a medication given to her by someone at the facility and died shortly thereafter. It was later discovered that the individual who had diagnosed the bipolar disorder for which she received the medication was actually not a licensed psychologist, and her Ph.D. had come from an unaccredited internet college. This “doctor”, as she held herself out to be, had applied to Massachusetts to be a licensed psychologist and had been rejected. The individual who had prescribed the medicine to the teen, held out as a psychiatrist to the teen and her family, was actually a nurse without the authority to prescribe medications without supervision. Only one of the five purported professionals that treated the teen during the course of her treatment at the facility was properly licensed, and the facility exercised minimal supervision over its personnel. Several of the employees of the facility had misrepresented their licensing status and qualifications in order to obtain National Provider Identification numbers.
SCOTUS took the case at hand to resolve a circuit split, as the First Circuit had adopted the implied false certification theory in the Escobar case and other circuits had rejected such a broad theory of liability, stating that only express falsehoods or violations of expressly designated conditions of payment could constitute a false claim. The court held that the conditions do not necessarily have to be express conditions of payment, validating the implied false certification theory. As Justice Thomas noted in the majority opinion, “What matters is not the label the Government attaches to a requirement, but whether the defendant knowingly violated a requirement that the defendant knows is material to the Government’s payment decision.”
The materiality language used by the court here is important, however, in that it does put an onus on the qui tam relator to prove that the misrepresentation or omission at issue under the implied false certification theory was or would have been material to the government’s decision to pay the claim at issue. This cuts against the automatic attachment of False Claims Act liability even if a claim submission misrepresents an express condition of the contract under which the payment is made. The materiality of the misrepresentation is the overriding factor.
The court also walks back its recognition of the implied false certification theory in a broader sense by stating that liability can attach when, as the court held, “the defendant submits a claim for payment that makes specific representations about the goods or services provided.” It is not enough that a claim was submitted, there must be specific representations attached to or implied by the claim.
While the court endorsed the implied false certification theory in Escobar, it set a rather high bar for plaintiffs in applying the theory. The materiality requirement may prove to be an exceptionally high bar to claims brought under the theory, so although this case is ostensibly a broadening of False Claims Act liability and a “win” for relators, it may have smothered the implied false certification theory nearly to death in its embrace of it. For information on the False Claims Act and what the result in this case means for the healthcare industry, contact the attorneys at McBrayer.
Christopher J. Shaughnessy is a member at McBrayer law. Mr. Shaughnessy concentrates his practice area in healthcare law and is located in the firm’s Lexington office. He can be reached at cshaughnessy@mcbrayerfirm.com or at (859) 231-8780, ext. 1251.
Services may be performed by others.
This article does not constitute legal advice.