Chemed Corp. and Vitas Hospice Services Agree to Pay $75 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations Relating to Billing for Ineligible Patients and Inflated Levels of Care

Monday, October 30, 2017

Chemed Corporation and various wholly-owned subsidiaries, including Vitas Hospice Services LLC and Vitas Healthcare Corporation, have agreed to pay $75 million to resolve a government lawsuit alleging that defendants violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by submitting false claims for hospice services to Medicare.  Chemed, which is based in Cincinnati, Ohio, acquired Vitas in 2004. Vitas is the largest for-profit hospice chain in the United States.

“Today’s resolution represents the largest amount ever recovered under the False Claims Act from a provider of hospice services,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Chad A. Readler of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.  “Medicare’s hospice benefit provides critical services to some of the most vulnerable Medicare patients, and the Department will continue to ensure that this valuable benefit is used to assist those who need it, and not as an opportunity to line the pockets of those who seek to abuse it.”

The settlement resolves allegations that between 2002 and 2013 Vitas knowingly submitted or caused to be submitted false claims to Medicare for services to hospice patients who were not terminally ill.  Medicare’s hospice benefit is available for patients who elect palliative treatment (medical care focused on the patient’s relief from pain and stress) for a terminal illness and have a life expectancy of six months or less if their disease runs its normal course.  Patients who elect the hospice benefit forgo the right to curative care (medical care focused on treating the patient’s illness).  The government’s complaint alleged that Vitas billed for patients who were not terminally ill and thus did not qualify for the hospice benefit.  The government alleged that the defendants rewarded employees with bonuses for the number of patients receiving hospice services, without regard to whether they were actually terminally ill and whether they would have benefited from continuing curative care.

The settlement also resolves allegations that between 2002 and 2013, Vitas knowingly submitted or caused to be submitted false claims to Medicare for continuous home care services that were not necessary, not actually provided, or not performed in accordance with Medicare requirements.  Under the Medicare hospice benefit, providers may be reimbursed for four different levels of care, including continuous home care services.  Continuous home care services are only for patients who are experiencing acute medical symptoms causing a brief period of crisis.  The reimbursement rate for continuous home care services is the highest daily rate that Medicare pays, and hospices are paid hundreds of dollars more on a daily basis for each patient they certify as having received continuous home care services rather than routine hospice services.  According to the complaint, the defendants set goals for the number of continuous home care days billed to Medicare and used aggressive marketing tactics and pressured staff to increase the volume of continuous home care claims, without regard to whether the patients actually required this level of crisis care.

“This litigation and settlement demonstrate the commitment of the U.S. Attorney’s Office to investigate and pursue hospice providers engaging in practices that abuse the Medicare hospice benefit,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Thomas M. Larson of the Western District of Missouri.  “The integrity of the Medicare program must not be compromised by a hospice provider’s financial self-interest.”

Vitas also entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the HHS Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) to settle the agency’s administrative claims.

Steve Hanson, Special Agent in Charge, for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Kansas City Region, stated, “Healthcare providers who knowingly overbill our programs simply to increase their profits need to be put on notice that such conduct will not be tolerated, and we will pursue any and all remedies at our disposal to protect the tax payer and the Medicare and Medicaid programs.”

In addition to resolving the lawsuit filed by the United States, the settlement resolves three lawsuits filed under the whistleblower provision of the FCA, which permits private parties to file suit on behalf of the United States for false claims and share in a portion of the government’s recovery.  The Act permits the United States to intervene in such a lawsuit, as it did in the three whistleblower cases filed against the defendants.  These cases were subsequently transferred to the Western District of Missouri and consolidated with the government’s pending action.  The amount to be recovered by the private whistleblowers has not yet been determined.

The settlement was the result of a coordinated effort among the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Missouri, with assistance from the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the Central District of California and the Northern District of Texas and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.

The civil lawsuits are:  United States v. Vitas Hospice Services, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 13-00449 (W.D. Mo.); United States ex rel. Laura Spottiswood v. Chemed Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 13-505 (W.D. Mo.), transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; United States ex rel. Barbara Urick v. VITAS HME Solutions, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13-536 (W.D. Mo.), transferred from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas; and United States ex rel. Charles Gonzales v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 13-00344 (W.D. Mo.), transferred from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Baton Rouge Home Health Company Settles False Claims Act Case For $1.7 Million

Friday, July 21, 2017

BATON ROUGE, LA – Acting United States Attorney Corey R. Amundson announced that CHARTER HOME HEALTH, a Baton Rouge-based healthcare company, has agreed to settle a civil fraud complaint filed under the federal False Claims Act by paying the United States $1.7 million and entering into a Corporate Integrity Agreement.

The settlement arises from an investigation into allegations that Charter Home Health, through its officers, paid Veronica Green and others for patient referrals from 2006 through 2012, in violation of Medicare’s Anti-Kickback provisions. The settlement resolves the matter as to Charter Home Health and its officers, Wandell Rogers and Allison Williams.

As part of the settlement, Charter Home Health has agreed to enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA). The CIA promotes compliance with the statutes, regulations, program requirements, and written directives of Medicare and all other federal health care programs, specifically dealing with, among other things, proper billing and submission of reimbursement claims by Charter Home Health.

The investigation leading to this settlement also resulted in Veronica Green’ s conviction for Social Security benefits fraud in the Middle District of Louisiana. Green had fraudulently concealed her receipt of the Charter referral payments from the Social Security Administration in order to continue receiving Social Security disability income. As a result, Green received $152,627 in social security benefits to which she otherwise would not have been eligible.

Acting U.S. Attorney Amundson stated, “We will continue to use all civil and criminal tools at our disposal to protect our tax dollars. I appreciate the hard work of the attorneys and investigators who handled this important matter on behalf of the United States. This settlement rightly results in the return of money to the federal government, along with a Corporate Integrity Agreement to help prevent any future improprieties.”

“Home health care providers who pay kickbacks in exchange for patient referrals will be held responsible at the settlement table. We will continue to crack down on such illegal, wasteful business kickback arrangements, which undermine medical judgement, corrode the public’s trust in the health care system, and divert scarce Medicare funding,” said Special Agent-in-Charge C.J. Porter, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General.

This matter was handled by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Louisiana, through Assistant United States Attorney Catherine Maraist; the Dallas Regional Office of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General; and the Baton Rouge Office of the Social Security Administration.

Three Companies and Their Executives Pay $19.5 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations Pertaining to Rehabilitation Therapy and Hospice Services

Monday, July 17, 2017

Ohio based Foundations Health Solutions Inc. (FHS), Olympia Therapy Inc. (Olympia), and Tridia Hospice Care Inc. (Tridia), and their executives, Brian Colleran (Colleran) and Daniel Parker (Parker), have agreed to pay approximately $19.5 million to resolve allegations pertaining to the submission of false claims for medically unnecessary rehabilitation therapy and hospice services to Medicare, the Department of Justice announced today.

“Clinical decisions should be based on patient needs rather than corporate profits,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Chad A. Readler of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “This settlement reflects the Department’s continuing commitment to safeguarding patients and the Medicare system.”

FHS is the corporate successor to Provider Services Inc. (PSI), which provided management services to skilled nursing facilities. In 2010, PSI was merged into BCFL Holdings Inc. (BCFL), which was renamed FHS in 2013. Olympia provided rehabilitation therapy services to patients at the skilled nursing facilities managed by PSI and BCFL. Tridia Hospice Care Inc. provided hospice care services. Colleran and Parker partially controlled or owned PSI, BCFL, FHS, Olympia, and Tridia between 2008 and 2013.

The settlement resolves allegations that, from January 2008 through December 2012, Olympia and PSI/BCFL submitted, or caused the submission of, false claims to Medicare for medically unnecessary rehabilitation therapy services at 18 skilled nursing facilities. The government contended that the therapy services were provided at excessive levels to increase Medicare reimbursement for those services.

The settlement further resolves allegations that, from April 2011 through December 2013, Tridia submitted false claims to Medicare for hospice services provided to patients who were ineligible for the Medicare hospice benefit because Tridia failed to conduct proper certifications or medical examinations. The settlement also resolves allegations that from January 2008 through December 2012, Colleran and Parker solicited and received kickbacks to refer patients from skilled nursing facilities managed by PSI or BCFL to Amber Home Care LLC, a home health care services provider.

“This is one of the largest nursing home operations in Ohio,” said U.S. Attorney Benjamin C. Glassman for the Southern District of Ohio. “It is unacceptable for an entity entrusted to care for our most vulnerable and elderly citizens to make decisions based on profit, not quality of care. Subjecting the elderly to inappropriate levels of therapy can be physically harmful, and failing to properly certify and re-certify hospice patients can have a devastating impact on the patients and their families.”

As part of the settlement, FHS and Colleran have entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the HHS Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). The CIA is designed to increase the accountability and transparency of FHS and Colleran so that they will avoid or promptly detect future fraud and abuse.

“Medicare providers have a legal and moral obligation to provide only those services that are medically necessary and to ensure that claims seeking payment accurately reflect the services that are actually provided,” said Special Agent in Charge Lamont Pugh III of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). “The misrepresentation or falsification of those claims not only violates provisions of the False Claims Act but the public’s trust. The OIG will continue to aggressively investigate allegations of potential violations of this nature.”

The settlement resolves allegations filed in two separate lawsuits by Vladimir Trakhter, a former Olympia employee, and Paula Bourne and La’Tasha Goodwin, former Tridia employees, in federal court in Columbus, Ohio. The lawsuits were filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private individuals to sue on behalf of the government for false claims and to share in any recovery. Mr. Trahkter will receive approximately $2.9 million and Ms. Bourne and Ms. Goodwin collectively will receive $740,000.

The settlement is the result of a coordinated effort by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio, with assistance from HHS-OIG, the HHS Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, and the Ohio Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.

These cases are captioned United States ex rel. Trakhter v. Provider Services, Inc., n/k/a BCFL Holdings, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:11-CV-217, and United States ex rel. Bourne and Goodwin v. Brian Colleran, et. al., Case No. 1:12-CV-935. The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Phillip Zane’s Game Theory: Ten Years On

Ten years ago this spring, Zane published his definitive work on game theory which changed the way law-and-economics scholars and sophisticated prosecutors and defense counsel analyze whether, when, and how corporations and executive management teams should disclose white collar criminal conduct.

Phillip Zane be the only attorney whose colleagues and clients might expect to see an open book on games and strategy on his desk.

Ten years ago this spring, Zane published The Price Fixer’s Dilemma:  Applying Game Theory to the Decision of Whether to Plead Guilty to Antitrust Crimes, 48 Antitrust Bull. 1 (2003), which changed the way law-and-economics scholars and sophisticated prosecutors and defense counsel analyze whether, and when, to settle high-stakes antitrust cases.

Zane’s article strongly suggested that in a number of common situations, pleading guilty (or even seeking the protections of the corporate leniency program) is not always justified.  Zane’s article used a repeated, or iterative, version of the prisoner’s dilemma to demonstrate that pleading guilty was not always the best strategy for antitrust defendants facing criminal prosecution and civil liability in multiple proceedings or jurisdictions.

At the time, a few of the brainier Antitrust Division prosecutors breathed a sigh of relief when the defense bar did not seem to notice and they failed to incorporate Zane’s research into their negotiating strategies.

In 2007, Zane published “An Introduction to Game Theory for Antitrust Lawyers,” which he used in a unit of an antitrust class he taught at George Mason University School of Law. That paper was another milestone on the way to making game theory concepts accessible and useful to the antitrust defense bar.

Zane’s work, which now used game theory to criticize the settlement of the second Microsoft case and the Government’s approach to conscious parallelism, as well as the leniency program, was met with official grumblings within the Antitrust Division.

GeyerGorey LLP was founded on the principle that the chances for achieving the best possible outcome are maximized by having access to multiple, top-notch, cross-disciplinary legal minds that are synced together by an organizational and compensation structure that encourages sharing of ideas and information in client relationships.

As international enforcement agencies sprouted and developed criminal capabilities and as more hybrid matters included prosecutors from US enforcement agency components with sometimes overlapping jurisdictions, such as the Antitrust, Criminal, Civil and Tax Divisions of the Department of Justice, and the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies, particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission, it became apparent that Zane’s game-theoretic approach has application in almost every significant decision we could be called upon to make.  Since Zane has joined us we have been working to factor in the increased risks associated with what we call hybrid conduct (conduct that violates more than a single statute).  Our tools of analysis for identifying risks for violations of competition laws, anti-corruption laws, anti-money-laundering laws, and other prohibitions, include sophisticated game-theoretic techniques, as well as, of course, the noses of former seasoned prosecutors, taking into account, each particular client’s tolerance for risk.

To take one example, an internal investigation might show both possible price fixing and bribery of foreign government officials.  How, given the potential for multiple prosecutions, should decisions to defend or cooperate be assessed?  And how might such decisions trigger interest by the Tax Division, the SEC, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or other regulators.  When should a corporation launch an internal investigation?  When should it make a mandatory disclosure?  What should it disclose and to which agency, in what order?  When should it seek leniency and when should it instead stand silent?  These tools are valuable in the civil context as well:  When should it abandon a proposed merger or instead oppose an enforcement agency’s challenge to a proposed deal?

These are truly the most difficult questions a lawyer advising large corporations is required to address.  We are well positioned to help answer these questions.

South Carolina-based Harmony Care Hospice Inc. and CEO/Owner Daniel J. Burton to Pay U.S. $1.286 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
South Carolina-based Harmony Care Hospice Inc. and CEO/Owner Daniel J. Burton to Pay U.S. $1.286 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations

Harmony Care Hospice Inc. (Harmony) and Harmony owner and chief executive officer Daniel J. Burton have agreed to pay the United States $1,286,999.32 to settle allegations that the South Carolina-based company submitted false claims to Medicare for patients under care at its hospice facilities, the Justice Department announced today.

 

Hospices provide palliative care – medical treatment that concentrates on reducing the severity of a disease’s symptoms – to patients who decide to forego curative care of their illness. Medicare beneficiaries are entitled to hospice care if they have a terminal prognosis of six months or less. The United States alleged that Harmony and Burton knowingly submitted or caused to be submitted false claims for patients who did not have such a prognosis and thus were not eligible for hospice care. Under today’s agreement, Burton is individually liable for $200,000 of the settlement amount.

 

“Billing Medicare for unnecessary or inappropriate end-of-life care contributes to the soaring costs of health care for everyone. Today’s settlement demonstrates the Department of Justice’s efforts both to protect public funds and safeguard Medicare beneficiaries,” said Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division.
Today’s settlement with Harmony and Burton resolves a lawsuit filed by former Harmony employees Mona Singletary and Lynda Fulton under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act. Under the False Claims Act, private citizens can bring suit for false claims on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery. Together, Singletary and Fulton will receive $244,529.87 as their share of the government’s recovery.

 

As part of the settlement, Harmony and Burton will enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to address the allegations raised in the qui tam complaint.

 

“As budget pressures increase it is more important than ever to protect Medicare dollars and vigilantly guard against needless health spending,” said Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “The company and its owner have agreed to Federal monitoring and reporting requirements designed to avoid such problems in the future.”

 

This resolution is part of the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and another step for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced by Attorney General Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in May 2009. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in that effort is the False Claims Act, which the Justice Department has used to recover more than $10.1 billion since January 2009 in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs. The Justice Department’s total recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 are over $13.9 billion.

 

The investigation was jointly handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina, the Justice Department’s Civil Division and the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

 

The qui tam case is captioned United States ex rel. Singletary, et al. v. Harmony Care Hospice, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-01404-PMD (D.S.C.).