On March 25, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) released Advisory Opinion 15-04 in which it concluded that an exclusive arrangement between a laboratory (“Requestor Lab”) and physician practices could generate prohibited remuneration under the anti-kickback statute. Furthermore, the OIG concluded that the proposed arrangement could violate the prohibition on charging Federal health care programs substantially in excess of usual charges, for which a provider may be excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.
The
Requestor Lab proposed to enter into agreements with physician practices to
provide all laboratory services for the practices’ patients and waive all the
fees where Requestor Lab is out-of-network.
According to the Requestor Lab, some physician practices desire to work
with a single laboratory “for ease of communication and consistency in the
reporting of test results.” For example,
different laboratories utilize different methods of reporting test results and
require different interfaces for reporting tests to the lab. However, some patients’ insurers require the
use of a specific lab and will not reimburse any other lab under out-of-network
benefits (“Exclusive Plans”).
Under
the proposed arrangement, where a test is ordered for an Exclusive Plan
patient, the Requestor Lab would not charge the patient, physician practice, or
secondary insurer for the test. The
laboratory would bill all other patients not under an Exclusive Plan, including
Federal health care program beneficiaries. The Requestor Lab stated that neither the
physician nor the practice would receive any financial benefit from the
laboratory’s provision of services at no charge to the patients with Exclusive
Plans. The physicians would not draw the
samples, and thus could not bill for the blood draw or the testing. The Requestor Lab would provide a free
limited-use EMR interface for submitting orders and receiving results, which
the OIG had previously determined is not remuneration under the anti-kickback
statute.
The
OIG concluded that the proposed arrangement could potentially generate
prohibited remuneration under the anti-kickback statute. Even though the Requestor Lab certified that
physicians and physician practices would receive no financial benefit, the OIG
concluded that a combination of factors would amount to remuneration to the
physicians in exchange for their referrals for services to the Requestor Lab. The OIG found that the Requestor Lab would
reduce administrative and possibly financial burdens (e.g., electronic record
interface fees) associated with using multiple laboratories, and, as such, the OIG
could not conclude that there was no possibility that the laboratory was not
offering remuneration to induce the referral of Federal health care program
business.
In
addition to the anti-kickback statute analysis, the OIG noted that it has the
authority to exclude providers from participation in Federal health care
programs that it concludes have submitted or caused to be submitted bills or
requests for payment to Medicare or Medicaid containing charges for items or
services furnished “substantially in excess” of usual charges, unless good
cause is shown. The OIG concluded that
the proposed arrangement could result in a two-tiered pricing structure, where
a substantial number of patients (those insured by Exclusive Plans) would
receive services for free, regardless of financial need, and where other
patients, including Federal health care program beneficiaries, would be
charged. The OIG noted that the only
reason for the proposed arrangement was to remove the obstacle that prevented
the physician practices from referring all laboratory business to the
laboratory. While the OIG could not
conclude whether the laboratory would violate the substantially in excess
provision, it opined that the risk was too high to grant the arrangement
prospective immunity under the advisory opinion.
Advisory
Opinion 15-04 continues the OIG’s long-standing skepticism of
physician-laboratory arrangements.
No comments:
Post a Comment