Healthcare attorneys advise medical laboratory leaders to ensure staff understand difference between EKRA and other federal fraud laws, such as the Anti-kickback Statute
More than four years have passed since Congress passed the law and yet the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 (EKRA) continues to cause anxiety and confusion. In particular are the differences in the safe harbors between the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and Stark Law versus EKRA. This creates uncertainty among clinical laboratory leaders as they try to understand how these disparate federal laws affect business referrals for medical testing.
According to a news alert from Tampa Bay, Florida-based law firm, Holland and Knight, “EKRA was enacted as part of comprehensive legislation designed to address the opioid crisis and fraudulent practices occurring in the sober home industry.” However, “In the four years since EKRA’s enactment, US Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement actions have broadened EKRA’s scope beyond reducing fraud in the addiction treatment industry to include all clinical laboratory activities, including COVID-19 testing.”
It is important that medical laboratory leaders understand this law. New cases are showing up and it would be wise for clinical laboratory managers to review their EKRA/AKS/Stark Law compliance with their legal counsels.
“Keeping in mind that [EKRA is] a criminal statute, clinical laboratories need to take steps to demonstrate that they’re not intending to break the law,” said attorney David Gee, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine, in an exclusive interview with The Dark Report. “[Lab leaders should] think about what they can do to make their sales compensation program avoid the things the government has had such a problem with, even if they’re not sure exactly how to compensate under the language of EKRA or how they’re supposed to develop a useful incentive compensation plan when they can’t pay commissions.” David Gee will be speaking about laboratory regulations and compliance at the upcoming Executive War College in New Orleans on April 25-26, 2023. (Photo copyright: Davis Wright Tremaine.)
How Does EKRA Affect Clinical Laboratories?
The federal EKRA statute—originally enacted to address healthcare fraud in addiction treatment facilities—was “expansively drafted to also apply to clinical laboratories,” according to New York-based law firm, Epstein Becker and Green. As such, EKRA “applies to improper referrals for any ‘service,’ regardless of the payor. … public as well as private insurance plans, and even self-pay patients, fall within the reach of the statute.”
In “Revised Stark Law, Anti-Kickback Statute Rules Are Good News for Labs,” Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report noted that EKRA creates criminal penalties for any individual who solicits or receives any remuneration for referring a patient to a recovery home, clinical treatment facility, or clinical laboratory, or who pays or offers any remuneration to induce a referral.
According to Epstein Becker and Green, EKRA:
Applies to clinical laboratories, not just toxicology labs.
Has relevance to all payers: Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance plans, and self-pay.
Is a criminal statute with “extreme penalties” such as 10 years in prison and $200,000 fine per occurrence.
Exceptions are not concurrent with AKS.
Areas being scrutinized include COVID-19 testing, toxicology, allergy, cardiac, and genetic tests.
“For many clinical laboratories, a single enforcement action could have a disastrous effect on their business. And unlike other healthcare fraud and abuse statutes, such as the AKA, exceptions are very limited,” Epstein Becker and Green legal experts noted.
“Therefore, a lab could potentially find itself protected under an AKS safe harbor and still potentially be in violation of EKRA,” they continued. “The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the DOJ have not provided any clarity regarding this statute (EKRA). Without this much needed guidance clinical laboratories have been left wondering what they need to do to avoid liability.”
EKRA versus AKS and Stark Law
HHS compared AKS and the Stark Law (but not EKRA) by noting on its website prohibition, penalties, exceptions, and applicable federal healthcare programs for each federal law:
AKS has criminal fines of up to $25,000 per violation and up to a five-year prison term, as well as civil penalties.
The Stark Law has civil penalties only.
AKS prohibits anyone from “offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving anything of value to induce or reward referrals or generate federal healthcare program business.”
The Stark Law addresses referrals from physicians and prohibits the doctors “from referring Medicare patients for designated health services to an entity with which the physician has a financial relationship.”
EKRA is more restrictive than AKS, as it prohibits some compensation that AKS allows, healthcare attorney Emily Johnson of McDonald Hopkins in Chicago told The Dark Report.
Recent enforcement actions may help lab leaders better understand EKRA’s reach. According to Holland and Knight:
Malena Lepetich of Belle Isle, Louisiana, owner and CEO of MedLogic LLC in Baton Rouge, was indicted in a $15 million healthcare fraud scheme for “allegedly offering to pay kickbacks for COVID-19 specimens and respiratory pathogen testing.”
In S-G Labs Hawaii, LLC v. Graves, a federal court concluded the laboratory recruiter’s contract “did not violate EKRA because the recruiter was not referring individual patients but rather marketing to doctors. According to the court, EKRA only prohibits percentage-based compensation to marketers based on direct patient referrals.”
In another federal case, United States v. Mark Schena, the court’s rule on prohibition of direct and indirect referrals of patients to clinical labs sent a strong signal “that EKRA most likely prohibits clinical laboratories from paying their marketers percentage-based compensation, regardless of whether the marketer targets doctors or prospective patients.”
What can medical laboratory leaders do to ensure compliance with the EKRA law?
In EKRA Compliance, Law and Regulations for 2023, Dallas law firm Oberheiden P.C., advised clinical laboratories (as well as recovery homes and clinical treatment facilities) to have EKRA policies and procedure in place, and to reach out to staff (employed and contracted) to build awareness of statute prohibitions and risks of non-compliance.
One other useful resource for clinical laboratory executives and pathologists with management oversight of their labs’ marketing and sales programs is the upcoming Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management. The conference takes place on April 25-26, 2023, at the Hyatt Regency in New Orleans. A panel of attorneys with deep experience in lab law and compliance will discuss issues associated with EKRA, the Anti-Kickback Statutes, and the Stark self-referral law.
Investigators may look into various angles, including drive-through testing sites for COVID-19 and whether uninsured patients were verified before free tests
Three healthcare compliance attorneys gave a clear and concise message to clinical laboratory managers and pathologists at the 2022 Executive War College Conference on Laboratory and Pathology and Management: Expect the government to scrutinize reimbursements it paid for COVID-19 testing, particularly for testing conducted at drive-through sites that popped up all over the country.
“The important question is: What is the fair market value of those specimens?” noted attorney Emily Johnson, JD, a Member at law firm McDonald Hopkins in Chicago. Johnson spoke during a legal panel on Wednesday at the Executive War College in New Orleans.
The panel spent 75 minutes discussing various legal concerns, many of them related to COVID-19 testing, before a crowd of about 80 attendees.
Attorney Emily Johnson, JD, of Chicago law firm McDonald Hopkins explained possible COVID-19 test fraud enforcement to attendees at the 2022 Executive War College. (Photo copyright: The Dark Intelligence Group.)
Audits May Be Coming of HRSA Reimbursements for COVID-19 Testing
Consumer Reports noted in a January article that COVID-19 testing prices varied wildly both in traditional healthcare settings and popup sites—in some cases, exceeding $1,400.
The average price for such a test within an insurance company’s network was $130.
Some people paid for those tests out of pocket or got them covered by insurance. For uninsured patients, the federal Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) established a pool of money to reimburse labs for free COVID-19 tests. That pool recently dried up and Congress has not approved more funding.
The U.S. Department of Justice may investigate the uninsured aspect of claims—specifically, whether there were attempts by laboratory staff members to verify whether a patient truly was not covered by health insurance, explained Karen Lovitch, JD, Chair of the Health Law and Healthcare Enforcement Defense Practice at law firm Mintz in Washington.
These issues bring up False Claims Act risks, especially if a clinical laboratory audits its own COVID-19 test claims. “If labs go back retroactively and determine a claim was paid that shouldn’t have been paid, those labs must absolutely be prepared to return that money,” Lovitch warned.
Clinical Laboratories Need a Business Plan for Post-COVID-19 Testing
Related to HRSA payments ending for COVID-19 testing of uninsured payments, clinical laboratories should be wary about outright ending such testing without a documented business plan demonstrating the rationale for doing so, Johnson noted. That advice is relevant for labs and pathology groups that received financial assistance from HRSA’s Provider Relief Fund during the pandemic.
Some have interpreted information about the fund to mean providers are obligated to treat uninsured patients, Johnson added.
“If I stop accepting uninsured patients for COVID testing, am I in violation of the Provider Relief Fund?” she asked. A clearly documented reason for doing so, such as a need to keep the business afloat through paid testing, would be a first step for concerned medical laboratories to take, she added.
Another point for labs to ponder: In March, the federal government named Kevin Chambers, JD—who is currently Associate Deputy Attorney General at the DOJ—as the first Director of COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement.
That appointment emphasizes the government’s commitment to undercovering SARS-CoV-2 wrongdoing, said attorney David Gee, JD, a Partner at law firm Davis Wright Tremaine in Seattle. Gee rounded out the panel at the Executive War College.
“I guarantee Chambers’ bosses want him to demonstrate the government is serious about COVID-19 fraud,” Gee commented.
EKRA Becomes New Tool against COVID-19 Fraud
Finally, as Dark Daily previously reported, the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 (EKRA) is sometimes being used to prosecute cases of alleged COVID-19 testing fraud.
EKRA has generally been associated with rules against paying clinical laboratory sales reps a commission based on testing volumes they generate. However, Johnson predicted more EKRA cases will be filed related to alleged kickbacks paid in return for referrals for COVID-19 testing.
“Prosecutors seem willing to go after these cases aggressively,” she added.
And in The Dark Report’s upcoming Regulatory Update, “Dept. of Justice: EKRA Governs Lab Sales and Marketing Commissions,” Dark Daily’s sister publication covers how a recent ruling by a federal judge may weaken EKRA and “immunize conduct that drives up medical costs.”
Subscribers to The Dark Report will want to stay informed on critical changes taking place that affect how EKRA operates.
The Department of Justice steps beyond the law’s original focus on opioid-related lab testing fraud
An interesting aspect with enforcement of the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 (EKRA) is the government’s willingness to go after charges tied to fraudulent COVID-19 testing.
The case U.S. vs. Malena Badon Lepetich provides a good example of this approach. A grand jury indicted Lepetich on various healthcare fraud charges last year, including that she allegedly offered to pay kickbacks for referrals of specimens for COVID-19 testing.
“The government had really only used EKRA in the context of addiction treatment space,” attorney Alexander Porter, a Partner at law firm Davis Wright Tremaine in Los Angeles, said in the latest issue of The Dark Report. “The Lepetich case shows that the government’s going to use EKRA beyond that context and go into other areas where they think that it can be useful—in particular, in the area of COVID-19 testing.”
Clinical laboratories and pathology groups should take note of this development.
Attorney Alexander Porter said EKRA enforcement now goes after fraudulent COVID-19 testing. (Photo: Davis Wright Tremaine)
Defendant Allegedly Filed $10 Million in Fraudulent Lab Claims
Lepetich was the owner of MedLogic, a clinical laboratory in Baton Rouge, La.
In addition to the fraudulent COVID-19 testing charges, she allegedly solicited and received kickbacks in exchange for referrals of urine specimens for medically unnecessary tests, according to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
EKRA Provisions Rose from the Opioid Crisis in the U.S.
EKRA is a criminal law that falls under the Communities and Patients Act, which lifted restrictions on medications for opioid treatment and sought to limit overprescribing of opioid painkillers. Originally, EKRA targeted fraudulent practices at sober homes and substance abuse treatment centers. However, the final draft of the bill added clinical laboratories to the list of providers under potential scrutiny.
At the time Congress passed EKRA, the law was primarily aimed at fraudulent activity in opioid treatment centers, including related lab testing.
Thus, the government’s use of EKRA in the COVID-19 charges against Lepetich case is newsworthy and establishes a precedent, noted Porter. He’ll speak about EKRA at the 2022 Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management. The event takes place April 27-28 in New Orleans.
A contentious part of EKRA for clinical laboratories and pathology groups is that certain conduct protected under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is treated as a criminal offense under EKRA. Some common lab practices come under that confusing designation, such as paying lab sales reps on a commission-based formula based on testing volumes they generate.
