Healthcare Law Blog

The Heat Turns Up: The 60-Day Rule Gets a Facelift but Changes Create Complications for Providers

With the OIG’s May 30, 2025, announcement that they are seeking $454.4 million in funding to fight healthcare fraud, healthcare providers can expect increased governmental scrutiny despite Trump’s budget cutbacks and staff layoffs.  The OIG justifies its budget request by pointing out that for every $1 invested, there is an expected return of $11 in government recoveries and receivables, which fuels the Trump administration’s fight on fraud, waste, and abuse in health care. What this means for health care providers is intensified scrutiny and likely use of AI as a tool to evaluate big data to identify potential false claims, fraud, outliers, etc. Considering the OIG’s 90-page new General Compliance Guidance, healthcare providers’ self-policing strategies and internal audits are more important than ever as the heat turns up on alleged fraud and false claims. More >

The Future of DEI in Healthcare: Navigating Compliance and Risk Under New Federal Policies

The landscape of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in healthcare is undergoing a seismic shift following recent executive orders (EO) issued by President Donald J. Trump. The order, titled "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," aims to eliminate DEI initiatives within federal government agencies and private companies contracting with the government. This policy shift presents significant legal and operational challenges for healthcare providers, particularly those relying on federal funding. More >

Malnutrition Diagnosis Codes: The Compliance Danger You’re Not Taking Seriously Enough

It may seem like hair-splitting, but including the wrong diagnostic codes for malnutrition on hospital inpatient claims – using codes for severe malnutrition in place of other forms of malnutrition – is a costly mistake. The estimated overpayment as a result of these coding errors is a reported $1 billion. Because the payment error rate was so high at a colossal 31%, Medicare-Severity Diagnosis Related Group ("MS-DRG") applicable entities must take note and prepare for a marked increase in Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General ("OIG") audits for these coding practices. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") also plans to implement review practices for malnutrition coding on a sample of inpatient claims. The increased payer audits will result in severe financial damage for hospitals and other MS-DRG applicable entities if they do not mitigate coding and documentation risks. More >

Compliance is Crucial

This article appeared in the December edition of MD-UPDATE, available at  http://www.md-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/MD-Update-Issue-118/#?page=8

In the current legal enforcement environment, it is crucial that healthcare providers prioritize compliance initiatives and programs in order to avoid illegal practices that may result in large financial penalties and both criminal and civil liability.   More >

"Incident to" Billing - Easy to Get Wrong

Billing for medical services is never easy. Despite attempts by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) to simplify the rule regarding “incident to” billing for Medicare services, it remains misunderstood by a large swath of providers. This proves problematic, as incorrect billing practices may lead to overpayments and False Claims Act violations. Billing for “incident to” services is an important mechanism to reflect the actual value of mid-level services provided under the specific plan of a physician. When properly followed, the “incident to” rules allow physicians to bill for services provided by non-physician practitioners as if they were performed by the physician at physician reimbursement rates. Additionally, the non-physician provider can be an employee, an independent contractor or even a leased employee, provided that they are supervised by a physician and the requirements are met. Because of the confusing nature of allowing a physician to bill for services he or she did not directly provide to the patient, serious landmines exist that can create problems if the rules are not scrupulously followed and documented. More >

The One Simple Rule for Practitioners to Avoid Overpayments and False Claims Act Penalties

In December, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) released its “Supplementary Appendices for the Medicare Fee-for-Service 2015 Improper Payments Report,”[1] an annual compilation of statistics from investigations into overpayments and other instances of fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare payments. What should shock Kentucky providers is that Kentucky has the seventh highest percentage of projected overpayments at 15.4%, or $897.7 million.[2] More than one out of every seven Medicare fee-for-service payments made in the Commonwealth is projected to be an overpayment in 2015, yet many of these problems could have been avoided by following one simple rule: document claims properly.

[1] U.S. Department for Health and Human Services, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (2015). The Summary Appendices for the Medicare Fee-for-Service 2015 Improper Payments Report. Retrieved from  https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Monitoring-Programs/Medicare-FFS-Compliance-Programs/CERT/CERT-Reports-Items/Downloads/AppendicesMedicareFee-for-Service2015ImproperPaymentsReport.pdf

[2] Ibid. at 13. More >

The Doctor’s Doctor: Professional Courtesy in an Age of Healthcare Regulation

For over 200 years, professional courtesy has been a hallmark of physician practice, a symbol of collegiality among doctors.  Historians describe its 18^th century beginnings as physicians providing charity care for the families of their deceased colleagues—an early form of health insurance for doctors’ widows and children.  Over the years, the concept of collegial care also became the preferred alternative to physicians treating themselves or their own family members.  In fact, the American Medical Association’s (“AMA”) first code of medical ethics created an obligation among doctors to reciprocate medical care and to extend the courtesy to physician family members as well. Today, the AMA recognizes professional courtesy as a “long-standing tradition” but not an ethical requirement.[1]  The federal government’s commentary about “the provision of free or discounted health care items or services to a physician or his or her immediate family members or office staff,” however, is far more cautious than nostalgic. [2]   The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General’s advice that physicians “consult with an attorney” before extending professional courtesy warns that certain arrangements for free or discounted medical care run afoul of fraud and abuse laws.[3] More >