Healthcare attorneys advise medical laboratory leaders to ensure staff understand difference between EKRA and other federal fraud laws, such as the Anti-kickback Statute
More than four years have passed since Congress passed the law and yet the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 (EKRA) continues to cause anxiety and confusion. In particular are the differences in the safe harbors between the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and Stark Law versus EKRA. This creates uncertainty among clinical laboratory leaders as they try to understand how these disparate federal laws affect business referrals for medical testing.
According to a news alert from Tampa Bay, Florida-based law firm, Holland and Knight, “EKRA was enacted as part of comprehensive legislation designed to address the opioid crisis and fraudulent practices occurring in the sober home industry.” However, “In the four years since EKRA’s enactment, US Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement actions have broadened EKRA’s scope beyond reducing fraud in the addiction treatment industry to include all clinical laboratory activities, including COVID-19 testing.”
It is important that medical laboratory leaders understand this law. New cases are showing up and it would be wise for clinical laboratory managers to review their EKRA/AKS/Stark Law compliance with their legal counsels.
“Keeping in mind that [EKRA is] a criminal statute, clinical laboratories need to take steps to demonstrate that they’re not intending to break the law,” said attorney David Gee, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine, in an exclusive interview with The Dark Report. “[Lab leaders should] think about what they can do to make their sales compensation program avoid the things the government has had such a problem with, even if they’re not sure exactly how to compensate under the language of EKRA or how they’re supposed to develop a useful incentive compensation plan when they can’t pay commissions.” David Gee will be speaking about laboratory regulations and compliance at the upcoming Executive War College in New Orleans on April 25-26, 2023. (Photo copyright: Davis Wright Tremaine.)
How Does EKRA Affect Clinical Laboratories?
The federal EKRA statute—originally enacted to address healthcare fraud in addiction treatment facilities—was “expansively drafted to also apply to clinical laboratories,” according to New York-based law firm, Epstein Becker and Green. As such, EKRA “applies to improper referrals for any ‘service,’ regardless of the payor. … public as well as private insurance plans, and even self-pay patients, fall within the reach of the statute.”
In “Revised Stark Law, Anti-Kickback Statute Rules Are Good News for Labs,” Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report noted that EKRA creates criminal penalties for any individual who solicits or receives any remuneration for referring a patient to a recovery home, clinical treatment facility, or clinical laboratory, or who pays or offers any remuneration to induce a referral.
According to Epstein Becker and Green, EKRA:
Applies to clinical laboratories, not just toxicology labs.
Has relevance to all payers: Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance plans, and self-pay.
Is a criminal statute with “extreme penalties” such as 10 years in prison and $200,000 fine per occurrence.
Exceptions are not concurrent with AKS.
Areas being scrutinized include COVID-19 testing, toxicology, allergy, cardiac, and genetic tests.
“For many clinical laboratories, a single enforcement action could have a disastrous effect on their business. And unlike other healthcare fraud and abuse statutes, such as the AKA, exceptions are very limited,” Epstein Becker and Green legal experts noted.
“Therefore, a lab could potentially find itself protected under an AKS safe harbor and still potentially be in violation of EKRA,” they continued. “The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the DOJ have not provided any clarity regarding this statute (EKRA). Without this much needed guidance clinical laboratories have been left wondering what they need to do to avoid liability.”
EKRA versus AKS and Stark Law
HHS compared AKS and the Stark Law (but not EKRA) by noting on its website prohibition, penalties, exceptions, and applicable federal healthcare programs for each federal law:
AKS has criminal fines of up to $25,000 per violation and up to a five-year prison term, as well as civil penalties.
The Stark Law has civil penalties only.
AKS prohibits anyone from “offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving anything of value to induce or reward referrals or generate federal healthcare program business.”
The Stark Law addresses referrals from physicians and prohibits the doctors “from referring Medicare patients for designated health services to an entity with which the physician has a financial relationship.”
EKRA is more restrictive than AKS, as it prohibits some compensation that AKS allows, healthcare attorney Emily Johnson of McDonald Hopkins in Chicago told The Dark Report.
Recent enforcement actions may help lab leaders better understand EKRA’s reach. According to Holland and Knight:
Malena Lepetich of Belle Isle, Louisiana, owner and CEO of MedLogic LLC in Baton Rouge, was indicted in a $15 million healthcare fraud scheme for “allegedly offering to pay kickbacks for COVID-19 specimens and respiratory pathogen testing.”
In S-G Labs Hawaii, LLC v. Graves, a federal court concluded the laboratory recruiter’s contract “did not violate EKRA because the recruiter was not referring individual patients but rather marketing to doctors. According to the court, EKRA only prohibits percentage-based compensation to marketers based on direct patient referrals.”
In another federal case, United States v. Mark Schena, the court’s rule on prohibition of direct and indirect referrals of patients to clinical labs sent a strong signal “that EKRA most likely prohibits clinical laboratories from paying their marketers percentage-based compensation, regardless of whether the marketer targets doctors or prospective patients.”
What can medical laboratory leaders do to ensure compliance with the EKRA law?
In EKRA Compliance, Law and Regulations for 2023, Dallas law firm Oberheiden P.C., advised clinical laboratories (as well as recovery homes and clinical treatment facilities) to have EKRA policies and procedure in place, and to reach out to staff (employed and contracted) to build awareness of statute prohibitions and risks of non-compliance.
One other useful resource for clinical laboratory executives and pathologists with management oversight of their labs’ marketing and sales programs is the upcoming Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management. The conference takes place on April 25-26, 2023, at the Hyatt Regency in New Orleans. A panel of attorneys with deep experience in lab law and compliance will discuss issues associated with EKRA, the Anti-Kickback Statutes, and the Stark self-referral law.
Federal agents allege ‘healthcare fraud abuses erode the integrity and trust patients have with those in the healthcare industry’
Here’s yet another example of how federal and state law enforcement agencies intend to further crack down on fraud involving COVID-19 testing, financial relief programs, vaccination cards, and other pandemic-related programs.
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it has charged the owners of a Calif. clinical laboratory—as well as 19 other defendants—for their roles in fraudulent billing, kickbacks, and money laundering schemes to defraud Medicare of more than $214 million.
Imran Shams and Lourdes Navarro—owners of Matias Clinical Laboratory, Inc., in Baldwin Park, Glendale, Calif.—which was doing business as Health Care Providers Laboratory, Inc. (Matias)—were charged along with the other defendants with participating in fraud that took place in nine federal court districts.
The indictment alleges the pair paid kickbacks to marketers to obtain specimens and test orders. The lab company owners then laundered their profits through shell corporations in the US, transferred the money to foreign countries, and used it to purchase “real estate, luxury items, and goods and services for their personal use,” according to court documents.
“While millions of Americans were suffering and desperately seeking testing and treatment for COVID-19, some saw an opportunity for profit,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Kenneth A. Polite Jr., JD, during a news conference at the Justice Department, The New York Times reported.
“The actions of these criminals are unacceptable, and the FBI, working in coordination with our law enforcement partners, will continue to investigate and pursue those who exploit the integrity of the healthcare industry for profit,” said Luis Quesada of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Criminal Investigative Division in a press release.
“Throughout the pandemic, we have seen trusted medical professionals orchestrate and carry out egregious crimes against their patients all for financial gain,” said Assistant Director Luis Quesada (above) of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division in a DOJ press release. “These healthcare fraud abuses erode the integrity and trust patients have with those in the healthcare industry, particularly during a vulnerable and worrisome time for many individuals.” Clinical laboratories throughout the US should be aware of increased scrutiny to Medicare billing by the DOJ. (Photo copyright: El Paso Times.)
According to the DOJ’s Summary of Criminal Charges, “Matias” Clinical Laboratory also “performed and billed Medicare for urinalysis, routine blood work, and other tests, despite the fact that Shams had been excluded from all participation in Medicare for several decades.” The indictment alleges that Shams and Navarro fraudulently concealed Sham’s role in the clinical laboratory and his prior healthcare-related criminal convictions.
“She always tried to follow the law and provide appropriate and quality testing services to the laboratory’s patients. She looks forward to clearing her name in court,” Werksman said.
However, both Navarro and Shams have a checkered past with law enforcement agencies. According to a State of California Department of Justice news release, in 2000, the two were convicted in California on felony counts of Medi-Cal fraud, grand theft, money laundering, and identity theft for using the names of legitimate physicians without permission and filing thousands of false claims with the state for medical tests never performed.
The Calif. Attorney General’s Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse (DMFEA) seized approximately $1.1 million in uncashed warrants, which were returned to the Medi-Cal program. Since the 2000 case, Shams has been barred from filing for Medicare reimbursement, the New York Times reported.
Other Felony Indictments and Criminal Complaints for Healthcare Fraud
In a separate case, the DOJ announced Ron K. Elfenbein, MD, 47, of Arnold, Md., was charged by indictment with three counts of healthcare fraud in connection with an alleged scheme to defraud the US of more than $1.5 million in claims that were billed in connection with COVID-19 testing. Elfenbein is owner and medical director of Drs Ergent Care, LLC, which operates as FirstCall Medical Center. Elfenbein allegedly told his employees to submit claims to Medicare and other insurers for “moderate-complexity office visits” even though the COVID-19 test patients’ visits lasted five minutes or less.
And in April, the DOJ filed a criminal complaint against Colorado resident, Robert Van Camp, 53, for allegedly forging and selling hundreds of fake COVID-19 vaccination cards, which he sold to buyers and distributors in at least a dozen states.
“Van Camp allegedly told an undercover agent that he had sold cards to ‘people that are going to the Olympics in Tokyo, three Olympians and their coach in Tokyo, Amsterdam, Hawaii, Costa Rica, Honduras,’” the DOJ said in a news release, CNBC reported.
Van Camp also allegedly told that agent, “I’ve got a company, a veterinary company, has 30 people going to Canada every f— day, Canada back. Mexico is big. And like I said, I’m in 12 or 13 states, so until I get caught and go to jail, f— it, I’m taking the money, (laughs)! I don’t care,” the DOJ stated.
Clinical laboratory directors and pathologists know these fraud charges provide another example of how the misdeeds of a few reflect on the entire healthcare industry, potentially causing people to lose trust in organizations tasked with providing their healthcare.
This is important for clinical laboratory leaders to watch, because medical labs often interface with hospital EHRs to exchange vital patient data, a key component of complying with Medicare’s EHR incentive programs. If claims of interoperability are shown to be false, could labs engaged with those hospital systems under scrutiny be drawn into the DOJ’s investigations?
Violating the False Claims Act
In May, Coffey Health System (CHS), which includes Coffey County Hospital, a 25-bed critical access hospital located in Burlington, Kan., agreed to pay the US government a total of $250,000 to settle a claim that it violated the False Claims Act.
CHS’ former CIO filed the qui tam (aka, whistleblower) lawsuit, which allows individuals to sue on behalf of the government and share in monetary recovery. He alleged that CHS provided false information to the government about being in compliance with security standards to receive incentive payments under the EHR Incentive Program.
According to a DOJ press release, “the United States alleged that Coffey Health System falsely attested that it conducted and/or reviewed security risk analyses in accordance with requirements under a federal incentive program for the reporting periods of 2012 and 2013. The government contended that the hospital submitted false claims to the Medicare and Medicaid Programs pursuant the Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Program.”
“Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries expect that providers ensure the accuracy and security of their electronic health records,” said Stephen McAllister (above), United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, in the DOJ press release. “This office remains committed to protecting the federal health programs and to hold accountable those whose conduct results in improper payments.” (Photo copyright: US Department of Justice.)
The Recovery Act allocated $25 billion to incentivize healthcare professionals and facilities to adopt and demonstrate meaningful use (MU) of electronic health records by January 1, 2014. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the incentive funds when providers attested to accomplishing specific goals set by the program.
The website of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), HealthIt.gov, defines “meaningful use” as the use of digital medical and health records to:
Improve quality, safety, efficiency, and reduce
health disparities;
Engage patients and their families;
Improve care coordination and population and
public health; and
Maintain privacy and security of patient health
information.
The purpose of the HITECH Act was to address privacy and security concerns linked to electronic storage and transference of protected health information (PHI). HITECH encourages healthcare organizations to update their health records and record systems, and it offers financial incentives to institutions that are in compliance with the requirements of the program.
When eligible professionals or eligible hospitals attest to being in compliance with Medicare’s EHR incentive program requirements, they can file claims for federal funds, which are paid and audited by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) through Medicare and Medicaid.
Institutions receiving funds must demonstrate meaningful use
of EHR records or risk potential penalties, including the delay or cancellation
of future payments and full reimbursement of payments already received. In
addition, false statements submitted in filed documents are subject to criminal
laws and civil penalties at both the state and federal levels.
EHR Developers Under Scrutiny by DOJ
EHR vendors also have been investigated and ordered to make
restitutions by the DOJ.
In February, Greenway Health, a Tampa-based EHR developer, agree to pay $57.25 million to resolve allegations related to the False Claims Act. In this case, the government contended that Greenway obtained certification for its “Prime Suite” EHR even though the technology did not meet the requirements for meaningful use.
And EHR vendor eClinicalWorks paid the government $155 million to settle allegations under the False Claims Act. The government maintained that eClinicalWorks misrepresented the capabilities of their software and provided $392,000 in kickbacks to customers who promoted its product.
Legal cases such as these demonstrate that the DOJ will
pursue both vendors and healthcare organizations that misrepresent their
products or falsely attest to interoperability under the terms laid out by
Medicare’s EHR Incentive Program.
Clinical laboratory leaders and pathology groups should carefully
study these cases. This knowledge may be helpful when they are asked to create
and maintain interfaces to exchange patient data with client EHRs.
