Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Business Crimes Hotline

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
October 02, 2015

GEORGIA

Settlement Requires Hospital and Physician to Pay over $25 Million

On Sept. 4, 2015, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a settlement had been reached between Columbus Regional Healthcare System (Columbus Regional) and Dr. Andrew Pippas for violations of the Stark Law between 2003 and 2013, and false claims reporting between 2006 and 2013. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Columbus Regional agreed to pay $25 million, with $10 million due up front, plus additional payments of up to $10 million over the next five years (contingent upon Columbus Regional's future revenue). Pippas agreed to pay nearly $500,000, due immediately. The majority of the funds recovered will go to repay the federal government, with $746,100 being directed to the state of Georgia. Neither party admitted liability as part of the settlement.

Michael Moore, the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia, stated that “[a]ccess to health care is on everyone's mind, especially with respect to rural communities. The type of conduct alleged in this case puts that access at risk.” Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the DOJ's Civil Division, further suggested that the settlement “demonstrates our continuing vigilance to ensure that health care referrals are based solely on the medical needs of the patient and that health care providers bill the government only for the care they provide.”

The Stark Law prohibits a physician from referring a patient to a medical facility in which the physician has a financial interest. In violation of this provision, Columbus Regional admitted to overcompensating Pippas (through salary and directorship payments) for a decade. Had the case not settled, Columbus Regional could have faced over $150 million in liability for all government-backed insurance claims that the overpaid doctor submitted. The False Claims Act (FCA) more broadly imposes liability on companies that defraud governmental programs and, in this case, focused on Columbus Regional's numerous claims to federal health care programs at higher levels than what was actually provided without sufficient documentation.

In addition to the monetary penalty, Columbus Regional is also obligated to enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, which mandates Columbus General to employ procedures designed to detect and eliminate similar violations in the future. Moore contends that this requirement ensures the existence of an “appropriately functioning” system that is “accessible to the wide array of the communities” served. This settlement also resolves two federal court lawsuits filed by former administrator of the Columbus Regional's cancer center, Richard Barker. The first lawsuit was initiated under the whistleblower provisions of the FCA and the second accused Columbus Regional of Stark Law violations.

The government viewed this settlement as a victory in further support of its Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team, launched in May 2009 by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which seeks to combat Medicare and Medicaid fraud. ' Colleen Snow, Mayer Brown

'

GEORGIA

Settlement Requires Hospital and Physician to Pay over $25 Million

On Sept. 4, 2015, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a settlement had been reached between Columbus Regional Healthcare System (Columbus Regional) and Dr. Andrew Pippas for violations of the Stark Law between 2003 and 2013, and false claims reporting between 2006 and 2013. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Columbus Regional agreed to pay $25 million, with $10 million due up front, plus additional payments of up to $10 million over the next five years (contingent upon Columbus Regional's future revenue). Pippas agreed to pay nearly $500,000, due immediately. The majority of the funds recovered will go to repay the federal government, with $746,100 being directed to the state of Georgia. Neither party admitted liability as part of the settlement.

Michael Moore, the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia, stated that “[a]ccess to health care is on everyone's mind, especially with respect to rural communities. The type of conduct alleged in this case puts that access at risk.” Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the DOJ's Civil Division, further suggested that the settlement “demonstrates our continuing vigilance to ensure that health care referrals are based solely on the medical needs of the patient and that health care providers bill the government only for the care they provide.”

The Stark Law prohibits a physician from referring a patient to a medical facility in which the physician has a financial interest. In violation of this provision, Columbus Regional admitted to overcompensating Pippas (through salary and directorship payments) for a decade. Had the case not settled, Columbus Regional could have faced over $150 million in liability for all government-backed insurance claims that the overpaid doctor submitted. The False Claims Act (FCA) more broadly imposes liability on companies that defraud governmental programs and, in this case, focused on Columbus Regional's numerous claims to federal health care programs at higher levels than what was actually provided without sufficient documentation.

In addition to the monetary penalty, Columbus Regional is also obligated to enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, which mandates Columbus General to employ procedures designed to detect and eliminate similar violations in the future. Moore contends that this requirement ensures the existence of an “appropriately functioning” system that is “accessible to the wide array of the communities” served. This settlement also resolves two federal court lawsuits filed by former administrator of the Columbus Regional's cancer center, Richard Barker. The first lawsuit was initiated under the whistleblower provisions of the FCA and the second accused Columbus Regional of Stark Law violations.

The government viewed this settlement as a victory in further support of its Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team, launched in May 2009 by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which seeks to combat Medicare and Medicaid fraud. ' Colleen Snow, Mayer Brown

'

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at customercare@alm.com or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?