In U.S. v. Patel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a Chicago doctor’s criminal conviction under the Anti-Kickback Statute for accepting payments from a home health agency finding that a referral includes not just a recommendation to visit a specific business but also a certification allowing that visit to be billed to the federal government.

“A narrow definition of the term would defeat the central purposes of the [statute],” the circuit panel wrote.

The appellant physician had provided his patients a wide variety of agencies to choose from and only accepted inducements from one home health care agency.  Still , the Circuit Court ruled that that conduct was still improper because it implied a quid pro quo every time Patel filled out the forms necessary for the home health care agency to receive reimbursements from the government.

“Patel argues that he … played no role in his patients’ initial selection of Grand (the health care agency) or their decision to continue using Grand,” the court said. “True, but Patel chose whether his patients could go to Grand at all, which we think is just as important.”

The panel noted that federal Stark Law, which restricts physician self-referrals, defines the term to cover “certifying or recertifying” the need for care.  Rejecting the loophole offered by the appellant physician in his appeal, the Circuit Court recognized that “the possibility of a kickback for each recertification incentivizes the physician to keep recertifying, even if further treatment is unnecessary or if treatment by a different provider would be in the patient’s best interest….”