United States: Health Care Enforcement Year in Review and 2019 Outlook: Civil Litigation Developments and Settlements

Last Updated: January 15 2019
Article by Karen S. Lovitch, Brian P. Dunphy and Laurence J. Freedman

As in years past, the False Claims Act (FCA) remained a powerful health care enforcement tool in 2018, and FCA investigations and litigation persisted, fueled mainly by hundreds of lawsuits filed annually by relators, including 645 new qui tam actions initiated in FY 2018. An earlier post in our blog series analyzed data associated with these FCA litigation trends. Last year brought abundant, notable FCA case law developments and civil settlements, in addition to numerous Department of Justice (DOJ) policy changes, which we discussed in a prior post. This post covers 2018's most significant developments in FCA litigation and settlements, some of which are likely to influence the prosecution and defense of FCA cases for years to come.

Key FCA Civil Litigation Developments

Courts Continued to Grapple with the Application of Escobar

Consistent with the trend we discussed last year, Courts of Appeals and federal district courts continued to apply the Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016), which endorsed the theory of "implied false certification" under the FCA. As we covered in detail, the Court premised this theory on a "rigorous and demanding" element of "materiality," requiring that the alleged violation of a statute, regulation, or contract that gives rise to an FCA violation be "material" to the government's payment decision and that the provider or contractor must know that it is material. The Court's materiality analysis centered on "the likely or actual behavior" of the agency that made the payment decision. The Court also rejected the view that "materiality is too fact intensive to dismiss False Claims Act cases on a motion to dismiss . . . " so the stage was set for litigating the central issue of what is required, at the pleading stage, to allege materiality and survive a motion to dismiss.

As expected, extensive litigation concerning materiality has ensued. All but one U.S. Courts of Appeals – and dozens of federal district courts in every circuit – have grappled with this issue. In 2018, the central issues confronted by the Courts of Appeals were the significance of the government's payment decisions and whether DOJ or relators need to plead that the alleged violation did or would have influenced the government's payment decision.

Several Courts of Appeals, including the First, Third, and Fourth Circuits, have held that the complaint must plead plausible facts showing that the alleged violation impacted or, if known, would have impacted the government's payment decision. Two circuits, however, decided that relators need not plead that the alleged violation did or would have impacted the government's payment decision (or that the government would have paid claims even in the face of material violations). These cases presented an opportunity to revisit Escobar.

In particular, the certiorari petition in a Ninth Circuit case, U.S. ex rel. Campie v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., 862 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2017) – which was discussed in a post last month – merited close attention. In Campie, the relators alleged violations of good manufacturing practices by a pharmaceutical manufacturer with respect to HIV drugs. FDA had some actual knowledge of the alleged violations but never withdrew approval of the drugs, and the government never ceased paying for the drugs.

The Supreme Court asked for the Solicitor General's views of the materiality standard under the FCA in connection with this petition. In November 2018, the Solicitor General filed an amicus curiae brief discussing whether the relators' FCA case should be dismissed. The Solicitor General agreed with the Ninth Circuit that the case should not be dismissed at the pleadings stage, but acknowledged that, given the government's continued payments, the relators "face[d] an uphill battle in alleging materiality sufficient to maintain their claims." Further, the Solicitor General argued that dismissal was not warranted based on case-specific circumstances, such as the dispute over the extent and timing of the agency's "actual knowledge" of the alleged violations at the time of payment, and potential reasons for the government to keep paying claims even in the event of actual knowledge of material violations.

The Solicitor General suggested circumstances where a violation of legal or contractual requirements is "material" (and thus actionable) even if the government continued to pay claims after the agency had actual knowledge of the alleged violations. First, the "government's knowledge of allegations that contractual or legal requirements have been violated" obtained through a qui tam FCA complaint cannot be equated with "government knowledge that violations have actually occurred." Second, "the government may have a variety of reasons for continuing to pay that entity for goods or services," including keeping federal programs operating, ensuring compliance with the government's own legal and contractual obligations, or determining that the alleged violation is not sufficiently serious to warrant a refusal to pay, and thus immaterial under Escobar. Finally, the Solicitor General, like the Ninth Circuit, rejected the defendants' argument that in the face of continued payment by the government, a relator must plead the reasons for such continued payment to overcome a presumption of immateriality. Notably, the Solicitor General also informed the Court that, if the case is remanded, the United States will exercise its authority under Section 3730(c)(2)(A) of the FCA to dismiss the case, which we described in a prior post in this blog series.

On January 7, 2019, the Supreme Court denied cert. in Campie, which means that the Ninth Circuit's decision on materiality will remain intact, and that the case will be remanded at which time DOJ will presumably seek to dismiss it. Also on January 7th, the Supreme Court denied cert. in U.S. ex rel. Harmon v. Trinity Industries, which we covered in a previous post. In Trinity Industries, the relator sought Supreme Court review of the impact of continued government payments on the materiality standard, which was the basis for the Fifth Circuit's decision to reverse a jury award of $664 million against Trinity Industries due to the lack of materiality, and to enter a judgment for Trinity Industries to end the case. The Supreme Court also denied cert. in Trinity Industries on January 7, 2019, thus the Court will not consider the issue of materiality in the 2018-2019 term.

Another closely watched case in 2018 was the Sixth Circuit decision in U.S. ex rel. Prather v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., No. 17-5826 (6th Cir. June 11, 2018.). In the second appeal in this case, the court reversed the lower court and held that a complaint sufficiently alleged fraud as to the timing of need certifications for home health services. Medicare requires a completed and dated plan of care, signed by a physician "[b]efore the claim for each episode for services is submitted for the final percentage prospective payment." Relator alleged that defendant Brookdale, a home health provider, submitted bills for home health services where the physician's signature on the certification was not obtained at the time the plan of care was established or "as soon thereafter as possible," as set forth in the regulations.

A divided panel held that a relator adequately alleged that defendant submitted home health claims with plans of care that were "untimely" signed and certified by physicians. Over a vigorous dissent, the two judges in the majority held that the relator was not required to plead facts about whether or how any violation of this regulation had ever affected past government payment decisions, and that this pleading deficiency could not weigh against finding materiality. The home health provider filed a petition for writ of certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit's decision, on November 20th.

A few takeaways from these case law developments are clear. First, as we have discussed since the Escobar decision, the government's knowledge of the allegations – both what it knew and when – and regulatory and payment history are central materiality issues. If the relator or DOJ has not alleged facts to support materiality, or has not pleaded why payment continued in light of actual knowledge, this argument might serve as the basis for a dismissal (and should be preserved in any instance given that the Supreme Court might hear these issues in the future). Second, if litigation is a possibility, it is critical that counsel develop – through aggressive discovery – a clear understanding of actual government knowledge of the alleged (or similar) conduct and any government payment history.

Appellate Courts Issued Numerous Decisions Addressing FCA Cases Based on Alleged Lack of Medical Necessity

In 2018, a number of appellate courts decided cases involving FCA claims based on allegations that health care procedures or services reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid were medically unnecessary. A central question in these cases is whether medical judgments – often the subject of competing medical expert opinion – can be "objectively false" and thus actionable under the FCA. As we discussed last year, over the last couple of years, several district courts have held that differences of clinical judgement about medical necessity cannot be "objectively false" under the FCA because "differences of opinion between physicians and medical experts about which reasonable minds could differ" cannot prove falsity under the FCA. Examples of such cases include United States v. AseraCare Inc., 176 F. Supp. 3d 1282 (N.D. Ala. 2016) and United States ex rel. Polukoff v. St. Mark's, No. 16-cv-00304, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8167 (D. Utah Jan. 19, 2017). As a result, several district courts dismissed FCA allegations that were based on the alleged lack of medical necessity.

However, several appellate courts pushed back last year by reversing district court decisions and finding instead that medical judgments can be "false" under the FCA. First, in Polukoff, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals revived a relator's FCA lawsuit, deciding that a physician's medical judgment about the medical necessity of heart procedures can be "false or fraudulent" under the FCA. The relator alleged that a physician failed to comply with guidance from the American Heart Association and American Stroke Association regarding the medically appropriate use of a heart procedure called a PFO closure. As we explained in a discussion of the court's decision, the court found that medical judgments can be "false" for at least three reasons:

  • Courts must read the FCA broadly to reach all types of fraud.
  • Just because the allegedly false statement is stated as an opinion does not mean it is incapable of being false.
  • Claims for medically unnecessary treatment are actionable under the FCA.

The court also found that a physician's certification that a procedure was medically necessary is "false" under the FCA if the procedure was not "reasonable and necessary" as defined by the Medicare Program Integrity Manual. Since the court's broad decision as to "falsity" could expose more physicians to FCA liability, the court pointed to the Supreme Court's statement in Escobar that the FCA elements of materiality and knowledge should prevent abuse of the statute. In October 2018, the Tenth Circuit rejected a request for rehearing, so the case is proceeding in the district court, which recently entered a scheduling order.

Because the Tenth Circuit adopted a broad definition of "false and fraudulent," the decision may shift the inquiry in FCA cases based on medical necessity from "falsity" to two other elements of the FCA: knowledge and materiality. The Tenth Circuit's decision may also open the door to future FCA claims based on a physician's alleged failure to follow manual provisions, medical society guidelines, and other guidance that are not embodied in regulations or in a National Coverage Determination.

Second, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's judgment of acquittal following a trial in which a jury found a cardiologist guilty of health care fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1347) and making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1035, and remanded the case back to the district court. United States v. Paulus, No. 17-5410 (6th Cir. June 25, 2018). There, a cardiologist allegedly committed health care fraud and made false statements by exaggerating the extent of blockages in his patients' arteries (measured using angiograms), and then he performed and billed federal health care programs for medically unnecessary cardiac stent procedures. After a trial and jury conviction, the trial court found that the cardiologist's assessment of the degree of blockage is a subjective medical opinion, not an objectively verifiable fact, so the jury could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the cardiologist made a false statement. The Sixth Circuit reinstated the jury's verdict and held that a patient's degree of blockage is a fact capable of proof or disproof.

Both the Tenth Circuit and Sixth Circuit decisions may result in more cases alleging a lack of medical necessity based on a "battle of the experts" to prove "falsity." All eyes are on the AseraCare case, noted above, which was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016 after the district court threw out a jury verdict against the hospice provider on the basis that falsity cannot be proven by differences of medical opinion. The Eleventh Circuit's decision is one to watch for in 2019 because it will be interesting to see how the court addresses FCA claims based on alleged lack of medical necessity.

Notable Civil Settlements in 2018

DOJ reported that FCA federal recoveries, including settlements and judgments, amounted to over $2.8 billion in the government's fiscal year 2018. Of that total, over $2.5 billion related to health care and life sciences, the ninth consecutive year with such recoveries over $2 billion and the second highest amount for the last four reported years. Of the health care recoveries, $1.9 billion resulted from qui tam cases, and there were 446 new health care qui tam filings, down slightly from the last two years.

Health care and life sciences settlements involved drug and device manufacturers, hospitals, Medicare Advantage plans, pharmacies, and laboratories. The largest settlement, for $625 million, was with AmerisourceBergen Corp. and its subsidiaries, and it involved resolution of allegations that it repackaged and resold cancer drugs to profit from "overfill" in the original packaging.

Two other significant settlements concerned allegations that pharmaceutical manufacturers violated the FCA by paying kickbacks to Medicare beneficiaries through their patient assistance programs (PAPs). In late 2017, United Therapeutics Corp. became the second pharmaceutical manufacturer to settle allegations of this nature when it agreed to pay $210 million to resolve claims that it improperly supported a charitable foundation's patient assistance program that helped patients afford copayments for hypertension drugs. This trend continued in 2018 with additional settlements involving some of the nation's largest pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Pfizer as well as another manufacturer that paid $360 million. The settlements are notable for at least two reasons. First, neither the settlement agreements nor the press releases mention qui tam cases, which are the catalyst for most health care fraud investigations. Instead, the Boston U.S. Attorney's Office apparently initiated these high-profile investigations. Second, each announced settlement has involved a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) that specifically addresses the implementation of controls and monitoring activities designed to ensure that the PAPs to which the manufacturers donate operate independently. These CIAs provide useful insight into the government's continuing expectations for relationships between PAPs and manufacturers. Given that two manufacturers have already announced settlements in principle and others have disclosed the existence of investigations, additional settlements are likely to occur in 2019.

On the provider side, an independent physician association agreed to pay $270 million to resolve a voluntary disclosure it made to the government and qui tam claims that it engaged in improper practices, including alleged "one way" chart reviews that supposedly increased reimbursement from Medicare Advantage plans paid on a risk-adjusted basis. Also, former hospital chain Health Management Associates, LLC agreed to pay over $216 million in a civil settlement (in addition to a $35 million criminal monetary penalty) to resolve allegations that it billed government health care programs for inpatient services that should have been billed as less-costly observation or outpatient services, paid illegal remuneration to physicians in return for patient referrals to HMA hospitals, and inflated claims for emergency department facility fees. To underscore DOJ's commitment to strict civil enforcement of the Anti-Kickback Statute, William Beaumont Hospital, a regional hospital system based in the Detroit, Michigan area, agreed to an $84.5 million settlement to resolve allegations of improper relationships with eight referring physicians intended to induce patient referrals.

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.

Karen S. Lovitch
Brian P. Dunphy
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Sign Up
Gain free access to lawyers expertise from more than 250 countries.
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Newsalert
Select Topics
Select Regions
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