Health Care Lawyers & Attorneys : Schottenstein Zox & Dunn Law Firm : Strategic Planning, Managed Care, Insurance : Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Central Ohio

The Department of Justice announced changes to its corporate charging guidelines for federal prosecutors.  The new guidance revises the Department's Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations, which governs how federal prosecutors investigate, charge, and prosecute corporate crime.  The changes address issues concerning the attorney-client privilege and cooperation credit. 

First, the revised guidelines state that credit for cooperation will not depend on the corporation's waiver of the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protection.  Rather, credit will depend on a corporation's timely disclosure of relevant facts.  Corporations that timely disclose relevant facts may receive due credit for cooperation, regardless of whether they waive attorney-client privilege or work product protection in the process.

Second, prosecutors are instructed not to consider a corporation's advancement of attorneys' fees to employees when evaluating cooperativeness.  In addition, the mere participation in a joint defense agreement will not render a corporation ineligible for cooperation credit. 

The revised guidelines are located here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On July 29, 2008, the U.S. Complaint in Intervention was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio alleging a kickback scheme among The Christ Hospital and certain cardiology groups.  The complaint  arises out of a qui tam action brought in 2003, in which the government intervened in March.  It alleges that The Christ Hospital allocated reading panel time at the hospital's "Heart Station" diagnostic testing facility among cardiologists based on their relative percentage of referrals and revenues generated from certain coronary arterial bypass graph (CABG) and catheterization procedures. 

No direct payment from the hospital to the cardiologists is alleged.  Rather, the kickback is alleged to arise from the "lucrative assignment" to the Heart Station panel.  This assignment is described as lucrative both because of the reimbursement the cardiologists received for their personal services in providing the test interpretations and because of opportunities the panel time afforded for obtaining new patients. 

The tie between the referrals to the hospital and amount of panel time allocated to the cardiologists is stunningly clear as alleged in the complaint.  Specifically, the hospital is alleged to have allocated panel time in direct proportion to referrals and revenues generated - if a cardiology group generated 70% of the CABG and cath revenues, it was allocated 70% of the panel time.  Worksheets filed as exhibits to the complaint are offered as illustrations of this calculation method.  The complaint asserts that cardiologists who failed to generate sufficient revenues were not given panel time regardless of their qualifications.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Recent confirmation of the premise that labeling a document "peer review" does not automatically invoke the peer review privilege came via the Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals, which affirmed a trial court decision ordering the production of hospital EKG discrepancy reports.

Per hospital procedures, cardiologists overread emergency room physician EKG readings.  A discrepancy report was completed whenever the cardiologist's interpretation differed from the emergency room physician.  The defendants argued that the discrepancy reports were peer review documents and non-discoverable, based on Ohio Revised Code Section 2305.253, Incident or risk management report not admissible or discoverable; and Ohio Revised Code Section 2305.252, Confidentiality of proceedings and records within scope of peer review committee of health care entity.

Critical to the Court's finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering production of the reports was evidence in the record that the reports were used for patient care.  The Court also cited a lack of evidence that the reports were actually examined by a peer review committee at the hospital.  And, the Court noted that the reports were not "incident or risk management reports" since the purpose of the forms is not to record a patient injury occurring at the hospital.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The 2008 report to the President from the Corporate Fraud Task Force is now available.

The Report says DOJ has obtained nearly 1,300 corporate fraud convictions since July 2002.  This includes convictions of more than 200 chief executive officers and corporate presidents, more than 120 corporate vice-presidents, and more than 50 chief financial officers.  Some of the significant criminal cases are described in detail in the Report, including the National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc. case.  This case was prosecuted in Columbus, Ohio by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio and the DOJ's Criminal Division.  The Report describes the case as "one of the largest fraud investigations involving a privately held corporation ever conducted by the FBI."

Of course, the Corporate Fraud Task Force prosecutes "significant financial crimes," not  health care fraud offenses.  Thus, the Report's statistics do not include all the convictions of individuals and entities for health care fraud.  Because prosecuting fraud - health care, financial or otherwise -is never unpopular with the voters, expect more of the same in the future.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Medicaid providers who learn their employees, agents or owners are under investigation for health care fraud can't afford to wait for the criminal process to take its course before mounting a defense.  The indictment  alone of an employee, agent, or owner could be a financial death sentence for the provider.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services  ("ODJFS") has always been required to terminate a Medicaid provider agreement if the provider is convicted of certain criminal offenses.  As of September 27, 2007, ODJFS is now required to suspend a provider agreement based only on an indictment for certain offenses.  The statute applies to "noninstitutional providers," which means any person or entity with a Medicaid provider agreement other than a hospital, nursing facility, or intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded.  The indictment can be against the provider, as well as an owner, officer, authorized agent, associate, manager, or even employee of the provider. The suspension continues until the proceedings in the criminal case are completed through conviction, dismissal of the indictment, plea, or finding of not guilty.  In addition to suspending the provider agreement, ODJFS must terminate Medicaid reimbursement to the provider for services rendered.

The statute permits the provider to request a reconsideration of the suspension.  The grounds for requesting reconsideration are limited.  The important ground is whether the provider, owner, or owners can demonstrate that they did not directly or indirectly sanction the action of the authorized agent, associate, manager, or employee that resulted in the indictment.

The statute is particularly troublesome for providers because the indictment of an employee or agent  triggers the suspension.  The provider is then forced to demonstrate to ODJFS that it did not directly or indirectly sanction the illegal conduct. All the while, Medicaid reimbursement has stopped.  In addition, the Medicaid suspension may result in the suspension or termination of other third-party payer agreements.  Unless the suspension is lifted, the provider may be out of business by the time the criminal case concludes.

The statute is Ohio Revised Code Section 5111.031 and the corresponding regulation is Ohio Administrative Code Section 5101:3-1-17.5. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

According to its Semiannual Report to Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General ("OIG") is expected to recover $2.2 billion for the first half of fiscal year 2008.  Also for this period, the OIG reported exclusions of 1,291 individuals and organizations for fraud or abuse of federal health care programs; 293 criminal actions against individuals or organizations; and 142 civil actions such as False Claims Act cases, Civil Monetary Penalties Law settlements, and other administrative recoveries.  The report was issued on June 12, 2008.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

DOJ Press Release -  On May 29, 2008, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio announced the indictment of seven individuals on various offenses in connection with the transportation of Medicaid beneficiaries in vehicles called ambulettes.  The charges include mail fraud, wire fraud, health care fraud, and conspiracy.  According to the press releases, ambulette services contract with the Ohio Medicaid program to transport patients in vehicles known as ambulettes.  An ambulette is a specially equipped van designed for wheelchair passengers.  Medicaid pays ambulette operators for driving Medicaid beneficiaries to and from Medicaid-covered appointments, so long as:  (1) the patient rides in a wheelchair; (2) a medical doctor certifies the need for the wheelchair and ambulette; and (3) the ambulette itself otherwise meets safety specifications.  The defendants are charged with scheming to defraud Medicaid by charging Medicaid for rides of patients who did not use wheelchairs or require the need for wheelchairs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks