No one knows exactly how much fraudulent conduct costs the United States healthcare system. Some suggest it may cost Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers $100 billion each year. Regardless of the exact amount, everyone agrees that the fraudulent activities result in more expensive healthcare and possibly the deprivation of healthcare for some.
The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and agency inspectors general have recovered billions of dollars based upon demonstrated or alleged healthcare fraud. These cases and investigations, however, have generally been limited to a specific company or class of providers. Government investigators have struggled for years with how to identify fraudulent practices in government healthcare programs involving large volumes of claims. Continue reading “The Government’s Use of Data Analytics to Identify Healthcare Fraud”
Although several bills were introduced in Congress and President Trump has complained that drug prices are way too high, during 2017, the federal government did not pass any law nor implement any policy requiring drug manufacturers to disclose information concerning price increases. As a result, state legislatures have stepped in to fill this void. Unlike Congress, state legislatures have been much more aggressive in taking on drug price increases. Continue reading “2017 Was a Busy Year for State Imposition of Drug Manufacturer Price Disclosure Obligations and 2018 Isn’t Looking Much Better”
As Congress continues to grapple over healthcare reform, there are many uncertainties. However, one thing is clear: as government healthcare funding shrinks, federal and state enforcement agencies will continue to target compounding pharmacies for potential fraud.
Compounded drug use and related government spending, particularly on topical creams and ointments, has skyrocketed. Many argue that drug compounding regulation remains murky, making it too easy to prosecute traditional compounders. Compounding advocates suggest regulation of compounders has been heavy-handed and ignores the multiple benefits associated with compounding. Continue reading “Compounding Pharmacies Should Expect Greater Scrutiny as Government Healthcare Budgets Get Squeezed”
For years, states and the federal government focused their drug pricing enforcement efforts on higher priced and more expensive branded drugs. Not surprisingly, private qui tam lawyers followed on the coattails of these government enforcement efforts. The focus on branded drugs was not wrongheaded. States, the federal government, and qui tam plaintiffs were handsomely rewarded for such efforts, as in the multiple Average Wholesale Price (“AWP”) cases against brand manufacturers. However, while regulators focused on brands, they subsequently found that the pricing for generic drugs had increased unimpeded. In more recent years, the focus has shifted to generic drug price increases. For example, effective for the first time at the start of 2017, the Medicaid Program applied an inflation penalty component to Medicaid rebate payments for generic drugs. Historically, the inflation penalty applied only to branded drugs. The inflation penalty provides that when a drug’s price increases faster than the increases in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, a manufacturer is required to pay an additional Medicaid rebate amount to state Medicaid programs. Continue reading “Targeting Generic Drug Prices”
The government continues to seek ways to rein in healthcare costs. Now it has set its sights on the Medicare Advantage Program. Medicare Advantage Plans, sometimes called “Part C” or “MA Plans,” are offered by private companies approved by Medicare. If you join a Medicare Advantage Plan, you still have Medicare, but you get your Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) and Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) coverage from the Medicare Advantage Plan and not original Medicare. Medicare Advantage Plans may also offer extra coverage like dental, vision, hearing, and wellness programs. Continue reading “DOJ’s New Healthcare Fraud Target—Medicare Advantage Insurers”
Last month, the General Services Administration (“GSA”) finalized a rule marking what the agency describes as the most significant development to its Schedules program in over two decades. The rule completely changes how GSA will analyze vendor pricing for products and services.
Under the rule, vendors will eventually be required to submit monthly transactional data reports with information related to orders and prices under certain GSA Schedule contracts and other vehicles. Along with the implementation of the new Transactional Data Reporting (“TDR”) requirement, GSA will relieve vendors from two preexisting compliance burdens—eliminating the Commercial Sales Practices (“CSP”) and Price Reductions Clause (“PRC”) reporting requirements when vendors begin submitting transactional data.
While vendors should welcome the relief provided from the elimination of two burdensome regulations, the shift to TDR will not be without cost and risk; and, the eventual efficiencies promised by GSA remain to be seen. Indeed, the impact of the change will likely extend beyond compliance burdens, with potential effects varying from the nature of False Claims Act suits to the potential publication of competitive information.
