United States: In Closely Watched Case, Federal Court Upholds The Government's Position On Provider Mandate To Report And Return Medicare And Medicaid Overpayments In 60 Days

Last Updated: November 17 2015
Article by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Most Read Contributor in United States, December 2018

The federal district court in Kane v. Healthfirst, Inc., has stepped in to fill a regulatory void left by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and has provided long-awaited guidance to providers struggling to understand their compliance obligations and risks under The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's report and refund mandate. The authors of this article explain the decision and its implications.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA"), signed into law on March 23, 2010, included a provision (the "Report and Refund Mandate"), broadly requiring health care providers, suppliers, Part D plans and managed care organizations that were overpaid by the Medicare or Medicaid program to report and return the overpayment within 60 days of the date when the overpayment was "identified."1 Failure to comply with the Report and Refund Mandate exposes individuals and organizations to liability under the False Claims Act, Civil Monetary Penalties Law, and possible exclusion from participation in federal health care programs.

Addressing a "novel question of statutory interpretation," the federal district court in Kane v. Healthfirst, Inc.,2 has stepped in to fill a regulatory void left by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS"),3 and has provided long-awaited guidance to providers struggling to understand their compliance obligations and risks under the Report and Refund Mandate. In a sweeping 44-page opinion, the court held that, for purposes of the Report and Refund Mandate, an overpayment is "identified"—and the 60-day clock begins to run—when a provider is "put on notice of a potential overpayment, rather than the moment when an overpayment is conclusively ascertained." In rejecting the defendants' position, the court made clear that providers cannot wait until they are certain that they have been overpaid and by how much before reporting and refunding an overpayment from the government. The opinion also makes clear that failing to report and refund within the 60-day time-frame may not always result in liability under the False Claims Act, where a "well-intentioned" provider undertakes and documents that it acted with "reasonable haste to address erroneous overpayments."


Defendant Hospitals

In Healthfirst, Beth Israel Medical Center, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center and Mount Sinai Roosevelt, and Long Island College Hospital (collectively, the "Hospitals") all belonged to a network of non-profit hospitals operated by Continuum Health Partners, Inc. ("Continuum" and the Hospitals, collectively, the "Defendants"). The Hospitals each participated in the Healthfirst, Inc. ("Healthfirst") provider network; Healthfirst is a Medicaid managed-care plan. Pursuant to its contract with the New York State Department of Health ("DOH"), which administers the Medicaid program, Healthfirst received a monthly capitation payment from DOH to arrange for the broad range of medical services provided to its enrollees, including hospital care. The Hospitals and other network providers agreed that any payment they received from Healthfirst constituted payment in full for those services (except for co-payments), and precluded them from separately billing Medicaid on a fee-for-service basis.

The Billing Error

The electronic remittances issued by Healthfirst to the Hospitals were supposed to include a code indicating to providers that the services could not be billed to any secondary payor or Medicaid. However, as a result of a "software glitch," the remittances omitted the coding. Starting in or around January 2009, Continuum submitted claims to Medicaid on behalf of the Hospitals for services rendered to Healthfirst enrollees, which DOH mistakenly paid.

The software glitch first came to light in September 2010, after auditors from the New York State Comptroller's office had questioned certain improper billings. That December, the billing software vendor provided a corrective "patch" that was supposed to prevent Continuum from billing secondary insurers. At this time, Continuum tasked one of its employees, Robert P. Kane ("Kane"), a technical director, to determine which claims had been improperly billed to Medicaid. On February 4, 2011, five months after the glitch was discovered, Kane sent an email to Continuum's management with a spreadsheet containing 900 Medicaid claims totaling over $1 million of potentially improper billings. In his email, Kane indicated that further analysis would be needed to confirm the findings. Kane was terminated four days later.

The False Claims Act Allegations

In April 2011, Kane filed a qui tam False Claims Act lawsuit against Defendants (among others) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In June 2014, the United States and New York State (collectively, the "Government") intervened, alleging that the Defendants had violated the False Claims Act by knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an "obligation" to refund Medicaid overpayments retained by Defendants—a so called "reverse false claim."4 According to the Government's pleading, the Defendants "did nothing further" after receiving Kane's spreadsheet analysis to remediate the overpayments, and made full restitution of more than 300 overpaid claims in 2012, only after the United States had served a Civil Investigative Demand on Continuum as part of its investigation into the qui tam allegations.5 On that basis, the United States and New York further alleged that Defendants had "fraudulently delay[ed] its repayments for up to two years after Continuum knew of the extent of the overpayments."6 The Government's complaint continued, by "intentionally or recklessly failing to take necessary steps to timely identify claims affected by the Healthfirst software glitch or timely reimburse DOH for the overbilling," Defendants violated the Federal and New York State False Claims Act.7

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Defendants asked the court to dismiss the Government's complaint as legally insufficient to support claims under the federal and New York State False Claims Act. Defendants argued (among other things) that Kane's email and spreadsheet only provided "notice of potential overpayments and did not identify actual overpayments so as to trigger" the 60-day clock.8 The Government countered that the email and spreadsheet "identified" overpayments within the meaning of PPACA, which then required the Defendants to report and return these overpayments within 60 days. Specifically, the Government argued that an overpayment is identified when a provider has determined, or should have determined through the existence of reasonable diligence, that it has received an overpayment.


The court rejected the Defendants' position that an overpayment is "identified" only when it can be "classified with certainty" or "conclusively ascertained," and embraced the broader definition urged by the Government that an overpayment has been "identified" when a provider is put "on notice" that a certain claim or claims may have been overpaid. Finding no definition of "identified" in PPACA, the court concluded that the Government's interpretation is consistent with the purposes behind the statute as well as the legislative history of the False Claims Act.

As the court observed, Congress had intended liability to attach under the False Claims Act for failing to report and refund even before the obligation has been "fixed." Here, as alleged, after the Comptroller had alerted Defendants to the software glitch and to specific improperly paid claims, Kane then provided Defendants with a set of claims likely to contain numerous overpayments. At this point, according to District Judge Ramos, Defendants were sufficiently "on notice" of "potential" overpayments, such that the overpayments were "identified" and Defendants were required to report and refund any overpayments within 60 days. The court explained that to allow Defendants to "evade" liability because Kane's email had not conclusively identified the specific erroneous claims and exact amounts owed to the government would contravene Congressional intent to implement more "robust" anti-fraud measures.9

At least on the facts pled in Healthfirst, the court found sufficient notice to Defendants via the Kane email and spreadsheets to conclude that the overpayments had been "identified." We note that the level and specificity of notice in any given case will largely turn on the specific factual allegations that form the basis for the reverse false claim.

Saving Grace for Providers Acting in Good Faith?

Notably, the court did not pronounce a standard of absolute liability under the False Claims Act, in Healthfirst or otherwise, whenever a provider fails to meet the 60-day deadline to report and refund after having "identified" an overpayment. The court acknowledged that such an "unforgiving" application of the Report and Refund Mandate could impose an unduly harsh standard of compliance on a provider that has proceeded in good faith to diligently investigate potential overpayments, "but has yet to isolate and return all overpayments sixty-one days after being put on notice of potential overpayments."10 Although the PPACA contains no language "to temper or qualify" this outcome, the court noted that such an outcome is not inevitable in every case involving an alleged violation of the Report and Refund Mandate.11

First, the court remarked that "prosecutorial discretion would counsel against the institution of enforcement actions aimed at well-intentioned healthcare providers working with reasonable haste to address erroneous overpayments."12 Even the U.S. attorney in Healthfirst allowed that the Government would not bring a claim against a provider that has diligently tried to comply with the 60-day deadline.13 Stringently enforcing the 60-day deadline in the Report and Refund Mandate, the court added, could violate the spirit if not the letter of the False Claims Act.14

Second, the court analyzed another element of a reverse false claims violation, that the Defendants "knowingly concealed" or "knowingly and improperly avoided or decreased" an obligation. The court noted that the Government in Healthfirst clearly pled this element by alleging that Defendants "did nothing" after Kane had informed them of the potential overpayments. Significantly, this discussion left open the possibility that, through discovery and at trial, the Defendants could demonstrate that they had in fact taken good faith steps to investigate and ascertain the overpayments, and continued to do so, past the 60-day window. The court suggested that if Defendants could make such a showing, Defendants might not be liable for a reverse false claims violation.

What About CMS' Proposed Regulations?

While the Proposed Regulations have not been adopted and the court did not give much deference to CMS, the court did note that its interpretation of the term "identified" is consistent with CMS' published guidance.15 CMS may well have deferred finalizing the Proposed Regulations until the outcome of this case.

New York State False Claims Act

As the court noted, the New York State False Claims Act is virtually identical to the Federal False Claims Act. However, New York State's "reverse false claims" provision was not adopted until 2013. Defendants argued that this provision could not be applied retroactively to the alleged violations in Healthfirst. The court, however, found that the statute as amended may be applied retroactively, concluding that the potential per claim penalties of $6,000 to $12,000 plus treble damages in the State False Claims Act were not impermissibly "punitive" in nature.


The decision may be appealed after a final judgment is entered, if adverse to Defendants. Nonetheless, providers should take heed of the court's decision— the only federal court ruling to date on the issue—and conform their practices so that they act promptly and vigilantly when put on notice of potential overpayments. This may require an initial disclosure to the government within the 60-day period, supplemented by further disclosures to the extent any ongoing review or investigation determines the full scope of the overpayments or exact amounts overpaid.

Notably, in cases where providers may be arguably unable to satisfy the 60-day period, it is critical that they proceed with "all deliberate speed" and document efforts to investigate any potential overpayments. Plainly, a provider cannot "do nothing," stick its "head in the sand," and pretend that it is unaware of a potential overpayment, as the Government alleged in Healthfirst. Otherwise, delaying and consequently risking non-compliance with the Report and Refund Mandate may well transform a mistaken overpayment, even one in which the provider had no culpability, into a costly False Claim Act liability.

Previously published in PRATT'S GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING LAW REPORT – November 2015


* Jared Facher is an associate at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP representing health care organizations, insurance companies, and tax-exempt entities in litigation, transactional, and regulatory matters. Brian T. McGovern is a partner at the firm providing legal counsel and representation to health care and not-for-profit clients. The authors may be reached at jared.facher@cwt.com and brian.mcgovern@cwt.com, respectively.

1 See PPACA Section 6402(a).

2 No. 11-cv-02325-ER (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2015).

3 In CMS' proposed regulations dated February 16, 2012 (the "Proposed Regulations"), CMS outlined the steps that providers reimbursed under Medicare Part A and suppliers reimbursed under Medicare Part B are to take to comply with the Report and Refund Mandate. Specifically, the Proposed Regulations explain when, from CMS' perspective, providers have "identified" an "overpayment," and provide some clarity as to what those key statutory terms actually mean. 4 See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G) and N.Y. State Financial Law § 189(1)(h).

5 Healthfirst, p. 6.

6 Id.

7 Id. 8 Healthfirst, p. 17.

9 The Defendants also argued that an obligation did not arise in this case because the repayment of the claims was owed to the New York State Medicaid program, not the federal government. The court rejected this argument noting that the Medicaid program is funded jointly by the federal and state governments, and Congress has repeatedly provided that claims submitted to Medicaid constitute false claims for purposes of the False Claims Act.

10 Healthfirst, p. 25.

11 Id.

12 Id. at 26.

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 The court also noted that CMS issued a final rule implementing the Report and Refund Mandate with respect to the Part C Medicare Advantage program and the Part D Prescription Drug program. In the final rule, CMS defined "identified overpayment" when an entity "has determined, or should have determined through the exercise of reasonable diligence, that it has received an overpayment." Healthfirst, p. 30. CMS specifically clarified that to identify does not require "actual knowledge."

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions