On October 2, 2019, Retina Institute of California Medical Group (RIC), along with its former CEO and several physicians, agreed to pay $6.65 million to resolve allegations of False Claims Act violations. RIC is a medical partnership of ophthalmologists with multiple locations in California. The medical group was alleged to have defrauded government health care programs by billing for unnecessary exams, improperly waiving Medicare copayments, and other regulatory violations. Eric Young, managing partner of McEldrew Young Purtell Merritt’s whistleblower practice, worked on the case with attorneys from the law firm of Berger Montague.
The case, United States ex rel. Smith and Rogers v. Chang, No. 13-CV-3772-DMG (C.D. Cal.), was filed in May 2013. The complaint was unsealed in July 2016 after the government elected not to intervene in the case. The two Relators were both former employees of RIC who provided substantial documentation to support allegations in the complaint. Bobette Smith was the CEO of the practice group from June 2012 to January 2013, and Susan Rogers worked as the manager of the billing department over the same six month period. The allegations in the complaint were based on information discovered by the Relators during the course of their employment, as well as their personal observations and investigation into what they believed to be fraud against the federal government and the State of California.
Routine Waiver of Medicare Deductibles and Copayments Can Result in False Claims Act Violations
Medical service providers are required to collect copayments and deductibles from all Medicare beneficiaries, except in specific cases of financial hardship. Any incentive that generates improper referrals, particularly where a medical service provider offers free or discounted items or services to Medicare beneficiaries, or promotes overutilization of medical services can constitute the submission of false claims to the federal government. Thus, a service provider that routinely waives cost-sharing amounts for Medicare beneficiaries, but bills Medicare for the full allowable amount, can be face substantial penalties under the False Claims Act.
The Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services set forth detailed guidance on this issue back in 1994:
“Routine waiver of deductibles and copayments by charge-based providers, practitioners or suppliers is unlawful because it results in (1) false claims, (2) violations of the anti-kickback statute, and (3) excessive utilization of items and services paid for by Medicare.
* * * *
A provider, practitioner or supplier who routinely waives Medicare copayments or deductibles is misstating its actual charge. For example, if a supplier claims that its charge for a piece of equipment is $100, but routinely waives the copayment, the actual charge is $80. Medicare should be paying 80 percent of $80 (or $64), rather than 80 percent of $100 (or $80). As a result of the supplier’s misrepresentation, the Medicare program is paying $16 more than it should for this item.
In certain cases, a provider, practitioner or supplier who routinely waives Medicare copayments or deductibles also could be held liable under the Medicare and Medicaid anti-kickback statute . . . When providers, practitioners or suppliers forgive financial obligations for reasons other than genuine financial hardship of the particular patient, they may be unlawfully inducing that patient to purchase items or services from them.
One important exception to the prohibition against waiving copayments and deductibles is that providers, practitioners or suppliers may forgive the copayment in consideration of a particular patient’s financial hardship. This hardship exception, however, must not be used routinely; it should be used occasionally to address the special financial needs of a particular patient. Except in such special cases, a good faith effort to collect deductibles and copayments must be made. Otherwise, claims submitted to Medicare may violate the statutes discussed above and other provisions of the law.”
Retina Institute’s Alleged Systematic Waiver of Medicare Copayments and Deductibles
According the allegations in the complaint, the defendants attempted to induce referrals by routinely waiving Medicare copayments and deductibles for patients without properly investigating or documenting their financial status. In order to disguise the practice, the defendants sometimes allegedly had patients complete a financial hardship form; however, most deductible and copayment waivers were allegedly granted without the completed form. On those limited occasions when the form was used, patients often signed the forms, allegedly without providing any information regarding their financial status.
A ophthalmologist who maintained a general practice near one of RIC’s locations allegedly told an RIC ophthalmologist he expected that copays for Medicare patients to be waived, and that he would not refer patients if copays were not waived. The Relators had records which identified the patients who were referred to RIC by this particular ophthalmologist. The documents showed the receipts for those patients amounted to only 80% of the Medicare allowable amount. Without consideration of financial hardship or any documents to verify such designations, the copayments for these patients were allegedly waived as a matter of course.
Relators independently investigated several patients whose records indicated a financial hardship waiver. They discovered that some of those patients lived in expensive homes, including one residence valued in the millions of dollars.
The Relators each separately explained to Dr. Tom Chang, one of RIC’s physician/owners, that the policy and practice of routinely waiving Medicare copays and deductibles did not comply with Medicare regulations. Dr. Chang allegedly responded, on more than one occasion, that he would prefer to continue using the financial hardship waivers to ensure that RCI did not lose any referrals or patients. Dr. Chang allegedly said he would simply pay the fines if Medicare ever learned about the practice. In light of his former position as a Medicare compliance officer for the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of Southern California School of Medicine, Dr. Chang’s alleged comments and lack of concern are quite noteworthy.
Relator Smith made several attempts to advise RIC’s partners about changing the manner in which financial hardship cases were handled. She even made a presentation to the RIC senior management team and Executive Committee warning of the potential adverse consequences of continuing with the current practice. During the presentation, Dr. Chang allegedly repeated that he would pay the fines if Medicare ever discovered the way in which RCI handled the waivers.
The History and Purpose of the Anti-Kickback Statute
The Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b) (“AKS”), prohibits any person or entity from offering, making, soliciting, or accepting remuneration, in cash or in kind, directly or indirectly, to induce or reward any person for purchasing, ordering, or recommending or arranging for the purchasing or ordering of federally-funded medical goods or services. The statute was enacted in 1972 to address concerns that remuneration provided to those who influence health care decisions would result in services that were medically unnecessary, of poor quality, or harmful to a vulnerable patient population. Congress therefore passed the AKS to prohibit the payment of kickbacks in any form. The statute was amended in 1977, and again in 1987, to ensure that kickbacks could not be disguised as legitimate transactions to circumvent the law.
Retina Institute’s Alleged Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute
A physician who refers a patient for medical services to an entity in which the physician has a financial interest violates the AKS unless the referral falls within the “safe harbor” regulations.
The physician defendants named in the complaint had financial ownership interests in an ambulatory surgery center known as the San Gabriel Surgery Center. Those physician defendants, as well as other RIC physicians, routinely referred RIC patients in need of surgery to the San Gabriel Surgery Center. Such referrals would only be covered by the safe harbor regulations if the physician’s investment interest was fully disclosed to the patient.
According to the allegations in the complaint, RIC physicians did not advise their patients that RIC principals had an investment interest in the San Gabriel Surgery Center. Patients were allegedly given a brochure instead that stated, “The ownership for San Gabriel Ambulatory Surgery Center may be obtained by contacting the center at (626) 300 – [XXXX].”
In order to ascertain whether accurate information was disseminated, Relator Smith asked the scheduling agent at RIC to call the phone number on the brochure to learn who owned the surgery center. The scheduling agent allegedly reported to Relator Smith that the individuals who responded to the call could not provide any information about the ownership of the center nor could they find anyone who could answer the question.
The Government Relies on the Assistance of Whistleblowers
This case illustrates the important role that whistleblowers play in identifying and reporting fraud. Due to the enormity of claims processed under government-funded health care programs, it is impossible for every instance of fraud to be detected. Employees are often in the best position to observe fraud and gather evidence to corroborate their observations. The government depends on such individuals to come forward and report what they reasonably believe to be fraud.
The False Claims Act permits a private individual to sue on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery. The government may intervene in the action, in which case a Relator may receive a reward of 15 percent to 25 percent of any monetary recovery. In cases such as this one, where the government declines to intervene, the whistleblower may pursue the action on their own and can receive a reward of 25 percent to 30 percent of any monetary recovery.
If you have evidence of fraud being committed against the government by an employer, business competitor or contractor, call the experienced whistleblower attorneys McEldrew Young Purtell Merritt at (215) 367-5151 for a free, no-obligation consultation.