Skip to main content
Sister Publication Links
  • ESG: THE NEW IMPERATIVE
Subscribe
  • Sign Up Free
  • Login
  • Subscribe
  • News
    • Current News
    • COVID-19
    • Providers
    • Insurance
    • Government
    • Finance
    • Technology
    • Safety & Quality
    • Transformation
    • People
    • Regional News
    • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Patients
    • Operations
    • Care Delivery
    • Payment
    • Midwest
    • Northeast
    • South
    • West
  • Digital Health
  • Insights
    • ACA 10 Years After
    • Best Practices
    • Special Reports
    • Innovations
  • Opinion
    • Bold Moves
    • Breaking Bias
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • Vital Signs Blog
    • From the Editor
  • Events & Awards
    • Awards
    • Conferences
    • Galas
    • Virtual Briefings
    • Webinars
    • Nominate/Eligibility
    • 100 Most Influential People
    • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
    • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
    • Excellence in Governance
    • Health Care Hall of Fame
    • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
    • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
    • Top 25 Innovators
    • Diversity in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
      • - Leaders to Watch
    • Women in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Women Leaders
      • - Women to Watch
    • Digital Health Transformation Summit
    • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
    • Leadership Symposium
    • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
    • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
    • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
    • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
    • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
    • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
    • - Hospital of the Future
    • - Value Based Care
    • - Supply Chain
    • - Hospital at Home
    • - Workplace of the Future
    • - Digital Health
    • - Future of Staffing
    • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
  • Multimedia
    • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
    • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
    • Video Series - The Check Up
    • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
  • Data Center
    • Data Center Home
    • Hospital Financials
    • Staffing & Compensation
    • Quality & Safety
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Data Archive
    • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
    • Surveys
    • Data Points
  • MORE +
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Media Kit
    • Newsletters
    • Jobs
    • People on the Move
    • Reprints & Licensing
MENU
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. Finance
June 16, 2016 01:00 AM

U.S. Supreme Court endorses theory that could expand False Claims Act liability

Aurora Aguilar
Bob Herman
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print

    (Story updated at 2:27 p.m. ET)

    The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously issued a decision (PDF) Thursday that allows a legal theory known as “implied certification” to potentially bring more False Claims Act cases against healthcare providers.

    In the case, Universal Health Services v. Escobar, the healthcare provider had argued that it and its counterparts should not be held liable for fraud if they fail to comply with regulations never explicitly stated by the government to receive payment. In essence, "implied certification" can impose liability if a contractor has engaged in a lie by omission, such as failing to disclose its noncompliance.

    The court ruled that companies are subject to False Claims Act liability and the implied certification theory, but only if two conditions are met. First, claims from healthcare providers must request payment and make “specific representations about the goods or services provided,” which often is the case if providers use standard Medicare and Medicaid billing forms. Second, an organization's failure to disclose noncompliance with “material” requirements would equate to “misleading half-truths.”

    The outcome of the case could affect a number of industries, but the biggest impact could be on healthcare players. In 2015, two-thirds of federal whistle-blower lawsuits targeted healthcare entities. Implied certification is the basis of many suits brought against providers, and the federal circuit courts have been split on whether it should be allowed.

    Several experts viewed the decision as a way to strike a balance between combating healthcare fraud and protecting companies from what could be viewed as limitless False Claims Act cases.

    “The court did not create a standard that is a simple, straightforward algorithm that could easily be applied to reach a clear outcome in every case,” said Kirsten Mayer, a partner at Ropes & Gray who defends healthcare clients in False Claims Act cases. “But the court did set some important categorical requirements that will not change from case to case.”

    David Nadler, chairman of the government contracts practice at Blank Rome, said that “the subjective nature of the court's ruling is not likely to reduce the avalanche of False Claims Act cases because these issues are intensely factual and not likely to be dismissed early in the case.”

    The case goes back to a teenager who received psychiatric care at Arbour Counseling Services, a subsidiary of for-profit hospital chain Universal Health Services. The patient, who was a Medicaid enrollee in Massachusetts, died in 2009 due to adverse reaction to a drug.

    It was later discovered that Arbour, which billed the Medicaid program for services provided, had very few doctors and clinicians who were licensed to provide mental healthcare. There was almost no supervision of the unlicensed staff, who counseled patients and prescribed drugs anyway—a clear violation of state and federal standards.

    The Supreme Court remanded the case—which was fought heavily by hospitals, drug companies and medical groups—back to the appeals court. But the justices gave credence to the implied certification theory, meaning that hospitals and other healthcare organizations could be on the hook for False Claims Act penalties if they violate some Medicare and Medicaid rules that aren't related to conditions of payment.

    “It is going to increase liability in FCA for healthcare providers,” said John Petrelli, a partner at BakerHostetler. “But it has increased scrutiny into some of those cases with the materiality standard.”

    Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the opinion, stated that there is a “rigorous” and “demanding” process for determining alleged misconduct. There is an element of common sense in these cases, but justices also made it clear the False Claims Act cannot be used as “a vehicle for punishing garden-variety breaches of contract or regulatory violations.”

    Healthcare providers have to comply with what they say is a morass of regulations, and the ruling “clarifies for both sides of these cases the level of materiality that has to be shown before False Claims Act liability can be imposed,” said Jason Drori, an attorney at Foley and Lardner who represents healthcare companies in False Claims Act cases.

    Brian Markovitz, an attorney at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake who represents whistle-blowers, supported the Supreme Court's decision in a statement. He said it's "impractical" to tie False Claims Act lawsuits only to explicit conditions of payment to providers.

    "One couldn't seriously argue with a straight face that the government must expressly write in each contract or in every government program every possible scenario in which they could be defrauded," he said.

    Letter
    to the
    Editor

    Send us a letter

    Have an opinion about this story? Click here to submit a Letter to the Editor, and we may publish it in print.

    Recommended for You
    humana_i.jpg
    Humana names CenterWell president, eyes expansion
    Hospital systems finance 2
    Kaufman Hall: Hospital financial pressures may be easing
    Most Popular
    1
    More healthcare organizations at risk of credit default, Moody's says
    2
    Centene fills out senior executive team with new president, COO
    3
    SCAN, CareOregon plan to merge into the HealthRight Group
    4
    Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan unveils big push that lets physicians take on risk, reap rewards
    5
    Bright Health weighs reverse stock split as delisting looms
    Sponsored Content
    Daily Finance Newsletter: Sign up to receive daily news and data that has a direct impact on the business and financing of healthcare.
    Get Newsletters

    Sign up for enewsletters and alerts to receive breaking news and in-depth coverage of healthcare events and trends, as they happen, right to your inbox.

    Subscribe Today
    MH Magazine Cover

    MH magazine offers content that sheds light on healthcare leaders’ complex choices and touch points—from strategy, governance, leadership development and finance to operations, clinical care, and marketing.

    Subscribe
    Connect with Us
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS

    Our Mission

    Modern Healthcare empowers industry leaders to succeed by providing unbiased reporting of the news, insights, analysis and data.

    Contact Us

    (877) 812-1581

    Email us

     

    Resources
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise with Us
    • Ad Choices Ad Choices
    • Sitemap
    Editorial Dept
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Code of Ethics
    • Awards
    • About Us
    Legal
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Privacy Request
    Modern Healthcare
    Copyright © 1996-2023. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • News
      • Current News
      • COVID-19
      • Providers
      • Insurance
      • Government
      • Finance
      • Technology
      • Safety & Quality
      • Transformation
        • Patients
        • Operations
        • Care Delivery
        • Payment
      • People
      • Regional News
        • Midwest
        • Northeast
        • South
        • West
      • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Digital Health
    • Insights
      • ACA 10 Years After
      • Best Practices
      • Special Reports
      • Innovations
    • Opinion
      • Bold Moves
      • Breaking Bias
      • Commentaries
      • Letters
      • Vital Signs Blog
      • From the Editor
    • Events & Awards
      • Awards
        • Nominate/Eligibility
        • 100 Most Influential People
        • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
        • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
        • Excellence in Governance
        • Health Care Hall of Fame
        • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
        • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
        • Top 25 Innovators
        • Diversity in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
          • - Leaders to Watch
        • Women in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Women Leaders
          • - Women to Watch
      • Conferences
        • Digital Health Transformation Summit
        • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
        • Leadership Symposium
        • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
        • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
      • Galas
        • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
        • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
        • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
        • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
      • Virtual Briefings
        • - Hospital of the Future
        • - Value Based Care
        • - Supply Chain
        • - Hospital at Home
        • - Workplace of the Future
        • - Digital Health
        • - Future of Staffing
        • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
      • Webinars
    • Multimedia
      • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
      • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
      • Video Series - The Check Up
      • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
    • Data Center
      • Data Center Home
      • Hospital Financials
      • Staffing & Compensation
      • Quality & Safety
      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Data Archive
      • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
      • Surveys
      • Data Points
    • MORE +
      • Contact Us
      • Advertise
      • Media Kit
      • Newsletters
      • Jobs
      • People on the Move
      • Reprints & Licensing