Hospital System to Pay $84.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations Arising From Improper Payments to Referring Physicians
Seattle Whistleblower Attorneys report that William Beaumont Hospital, a regional hospital system based in the Detroit, Michigan area, will pay $84.5 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act of improper relationships with eight referring physicians, resulting in the submission of false claims to the Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE programs.
The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration to induce referrals of items or services covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and other federally funded programs. The Physician Self-Referral Law, commonly known as the Stark Law, prohibits a hospital from billing Medicare for certain services referred by physicians with whom the hospital has an improper financial arrangement, including the payment of compensation that exceeds the fair market value of the services actually provided by the physician and the provision of free or below-market rent and office staff. Both the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law are intended to ensure that physicians’ medical judgments are not compromised by improper financial incentives and instead are based on the best interests of their patients.
The settlement resolves allegations that between 2004 and 2012, Beaumont provided compensation substantially in excess of fair market value and free or below-fair market value office space and employees to certain physicians to secure their referrals of patients in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law, and then submitted claims for services provided to these illegally referred patients, in violation of the False Claims Act. The settlement also resolves claims that Beaumont allegedly misrepresented that a CT radiology center qualified as an outpatient department of Beaumont in claims to federal health care programs. As a result of this settlement, Beaumont will pay $82.74 million to the United States and $1.76 million to the State of Michigan.
The allegations resolved by the settlement were brought in four lawsuits filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private parties to sue on behalf of the government for false claims and to receive a share of any recovery. The four qui tam cases are captioned: United States ex rel. David Felten, M.D., Ph.D. v. William Beaumont Hospitals, et al., No. 2:10-cv-13440 (E.D. Mich.), United States ex rel. Karen Carbone v. William Beaumont Hospital, No. 11-cv-12117 (E.D. Mich.), United States ex rel. Cathryn Pawlusiak v. Beaumont Health System, et al., No. 2:11-cv-12515 (E.D. Mich.), and United States ex rel. Karen Houghton v. William Beaumont Hospital, No. 2:11- cv-14312 (E.D. Mich.). The whistleblower shares to be awarded in the cases have not yet been determined.
In addition to resolving its False Claims Act liability, Beaumont has entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General which includes, among other things, an arrangements review to be conducted by an Independent Review Organization.
The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
Source: Dept. of Justice.
The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration to induce referrals of items or services covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and other federally funded programs. The Physician Self-Referral Law, commonly known as the Stark Law, prohibits a hospital from billing Medicare for certain services referred by physicians with whom the hospital has an improper financial arrangement, including the payment of compensation that exceeds the fair market value of the services actually provided by the physician and the provision of free or below-market rent and office staff. Both the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law are intended to ensure that physicians’ medical judgments are not compromised by improper financial incentives and instead are based on the best interests of their patients.
The settlement resolves allegations that between 2004 and 2012, Beaumont provided compensation substantially in excess of fair market value and free or below-fair market value office space and employees to certain physicians to secure their referrals of patients in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law, and then submitted claims for services provided to these illegally referred patients, in violation of the False Claims Act. The settlement also resolves claims that Beaumont allegedly misrepresented that a CT radiology center qualified as an outpatient department of Beaumont in claims to federal health care programs. As a result of this settlement, Beaumont will pay $82.74 million to the United States and $1.76 million to the State of Michigan.
The allegations resolved by the settlement were brought in four lawsuits filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private parties to sue on behalf of the government for false claims and to receive a share of any recovery. The four qui tam cases are captioned: United States ex rel. David Felten, M.D., Ph.D. v. William Beaumont Hospitals, et al., No. 2:10-cv-13440 (E.D. Mich.), United States ex rel. Karen Carbone v. William Beaumont Hospital, No. 11-cv-12117 (E.D. Mich.), United States ex rel. Cathryn Pawlusiak v. Beaumont Health System, et al., No. 2:11-cv-12515 (E.D. Mich.), and United States ex rel. Karen Houghton v. William Beaumont Hospital, No. 2:11- cv-14312 (E.D. Mich.). The whistleblower shares to be awarded in the cases have not yet been determined.
In addition to resolving its False Claims Act liability, Beaumont has entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General which includes, among other things, an arrangements review to be conducted by an Independent Review Organization.
The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
Source: Dept. of Justice.