False Claims Act settlement in United States ex rel Robinson v. Indiana University Health, Inc. et al., Case No. 13-cv-2009-TWP (S.D. Ind. 2013) against an Indiana University hospital provides some important lessons about the Government’s enforcement trends where patient harm is an integral part of the false or fraudulent conduct alleged by the whistle blower. Further, while the DOJ press release champions the Government’s continuous victories against health care providers who undermine confidence in the federal health care system, the whistle blower’s lawsuit in this case was not without its deficiencies. In fact, prior to the settlement reached in this case, the district court knocked out one defendant and several counts in the complaint illustrating, again, why pleading with particularity in False Claims Act cases is critical. Whistle blowers cannot lump defendants together into a single complaint without meeting the heightened pleading standards in False Claims Act cases.
Background
Indiana University Health (IU Health) is a conglomeration of hospitals and other allied health care services. Indiana University Health Medical Hospital was the key hospital at issue in the qui tam complaint.
Health Net Inc. is a large federally qualified health center in Indiana which provides health care services, including pediatrics, obstetrics, and gynecological services on a sliding scale and the majority of its patients are Medicaid beneficiaries.
MDWise is the largest managed care provider in Indiana and is jointly owned by IU Health and another corporation. MDWise was awarded a contract to provide care to beneficiaries on Hoosier health care plans.
All of the defendants are related entities. Health Net supplied the professionals to the IU health hospitals and patients treated by Health Net doctors at IU facilities were covered by MDWise plans.
The relator, a former doctor working at Health Net and a board certified Ob/Gyn claimed that Health Net and IU Health engaged in a complex compensation arrangement designed to steer Medicaid patients to MDWise and described it best as follows:
Defendants collectively operated a complex scheme to funnel obstetric patients into MDWise as the managed care entity responsible for distributing Medicaid reimbursement, and to maximize Medicaid reimbursements by using certified nurse midwives and nurse practitioners (non physicians) to treat all obstetric patients, regardless of risk factors that mandate physician involvement. …MDWise knowingly failed to identify and reject the false claims submitted under physician names but actually conduct by non-physicians.
(ECF-138 at 19-20)
What is perhaps, most concerning, about the allegations above and the large False Claims Act settlement in this case is the apparent institutionalization at IU facilities of certified nurse mid-wives to perform deliveries of babies and during Caesarian sections to drive revenue. According to the False Claims Act complaint, claims were submitted over and over again with physician names giving the impression that a physician had properly supervised the obstetric care. Many of the patients receiving care from mid-wives were also high risk patients and at least some patients, under their care, died. There was a director whose chief responsibility was to vigorously promote the CNM program. In fact, the False Claims Act complaint alleged that white papers were distributed to physicians at Health Net justifying the practice of using CNMs as much as possible in these settings despite the patient population that was at risk.
In addition to the above, the False Claims Act complaint alleged that IU Health provided a “rent free” triage center inside of the hospital to Health Net physicians which was predominantly staffed by CNMs to assess whether Health Net patients were in active labor and also doubled as an after-hours clinic where pre-natal patients could be seen for pregnancy related issues. The complaint alleged that the “free” rent was a kickback to induce Health Net to refer its heavy flow of Medicaid patients to IU Health and its hospitals without an alternative choice of care (i.e. another hospital).
Finally, MDWise was dismissed from the False Claims Act complaint. The inclusion of the provider was significant because the relator alleged that the managed care entity was reckless in disregarding claims the managed care provider should have known were false and had a financial incentive to disregard. Those claims, however, according to the district court were highly speculative, not based on personal knowledge of the relator, and an attempt to pool together and treat all defendants equally and then sort it out during discovery.
Lessons from Indiana
- DOJ Likely to Intervene When Patient Safety is a Theme. The Department of Justice has said repeatedly on and off record that fraud that compromises patient safety is one of their highest enforcement priorities. This case epitomizes these concerns with high risk patients, a program targeted at driving revenue based on the use of non-physician CNMs and the occurrence of actual patient deaths.
- Free Rent is a Recognized Form of Remuneration under the AKS. The Anti-Kickback Statute punishes any person receiving or paying any remuneration in return for services which are reimbursable by a federal health care program. This case reminds us that “free rent” is an obvious inducement when the entity receiving the rent free of cost is a primary referral source.
- Managed Care Plans are Relator Targets. While MDWise in this case was not an ideal target and was dismissed from the complaint for that very reason, this case demonstrates that relators (and the Government) have a renewed focus on managed care plans and Part C. It also reinforces that over-zealous relators cannot simply lump together potentially very solvent defendant into a qui tam action without personal knowledge of the fraud and without having the ability to state the who, what, where, when of the fraud. ECF-153. Absent those allegations, a qui tam complaint is speculative and, in a case like this one, did not survive a motion to dismiss since there were no facts that put MDWise on notice of how it deliberately disregarded false claims as the managed care entity.
- Retaliation Demands Stricter Proof. The Court also dismissed several of the whistleblowers’ retaliation claims based on reporting of the CNM practices finding that the relator’s complaints related to “patient care and medical practices” and not fraud on the Government. ECF-153 at 29. Accordingly, whistleblowers will have to do better when it comes to alleging retaliation.