Caution: False Claims Act Penalties Poised To Double

B
BakerHostetler

Contributor

BakerHostetler logo
Recognized as one of the top firms for client service, BakerHostetler is a leading national law firm that helps clients around the world address their most complex and critical business and regulatory issues. With five core national practice groups — Business, Labor and Employment, Intellectual Property, Litigation, and Tax — the firm has more than 970 lawyers located in 14 offices coast to coast. BakerHostetler is widely regarded as having one of the country’s top 10 tax practices, a nationally recognized litigation practice, an award-winning data privacy practice and an industry-leading business practice. The firm is also recognized internationally for its groundbreaking work recovering more than $13 billion in the Madoff Recovery Initiative, representing the SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Visit bakerlaw.com
The significant increase is due to the Act's requirement for agencies to make an initial "catch-up adjustment" through an interim final rule effective by August 1, 2016.
United States Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

A preview of the effects that a provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 will have on healthcare providers came to light this week when the Railroad Retirement Board (Board) published an interim final rule implementing the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Act). The Act requires federal agencies to make cost-of-living adjustments to civil monetary penalty (CMP) amounts based on increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Board, which has jurisdiction over certain False Claims Act (FCA) violations, is the first agency to issue a regulation implementing the Act. The adjusted penalties for FCA violations calculated by the Board are staggering: the minimum penalty will be increased from $5,500 to $10,781 and the maximum penalty will be increased from $11,000 to $21,563.

The significant increase is due to the Act's requirement for agencies to make an initial "catch-up adjustment" through an interim final rule effective by August 1, 2016. Specifically, the catch-up adjustment is the difference between the CPI in October of the calendar year in which the penalties were last adjusted and the CPI in October 2015. The Board determined that for purposes of the Act, the FCA penalties were last updated in 1986, and it applied a CPI increase of approximately 215 percent to the 1986 penalty amounts.

An agency may adjust a CMP by less than the formula dictates only if (1) it publishes a proposed rule and determines that increasing the CMP by the required amount will have a negative economic impact or the social costs of increasing the CMP would outweigh its benefits, and (2) the director of the Office of Management and Budget concurs with the determination. No agencies have published such a proposed rule. Going forward, the CMP amounts will be adjusted without notice and comment rulemaking each January based on changes in the CPI.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is also required to update its CMP regulations related to the FCA. Because the formula for the initial catch-up adjustment is set by the Act, we expect the DOJ amounts to match the Board's calculations. The Act mandates that the adjusted amounts will be applicable to all CMP assessments occurring after August 1, 2016, even if the violation occurred before such date.

FCA penalties in the context of healthcare services rack up quickly because each line item separately billed in violation of the FCA is subject to the per-claim penalty. For example, if 2,000 claims for a $50 lab test are found to be inappropriate under the FCA, the treble damages would be $300,000 and under the Act's formula, penalties could reach a staggering $43,126,000. The extreme penalty amount in this example illustrates why a defendant in an FCA case might assert that penalties are excessive in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the argument was raised in many cases with the existing penalty amounts. The adjusted penalty amounts only reinforce the importance of undertaking effective, proactive compliance efforts.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More