Supreme Court hears argument on scope of False Claims Act
Compliance Monitor, February 12, 2008
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) and the Solicitor General are among those weighing in on a Supreme Court case that could impact future False Claims Act cases involving Medicare and Medicare.
The case, Allison Engine v. US ex rel. Sanders, centers on whether False Claims Act suits can address fraud between private parties where the claim was paid using government money, but was not directly submitted to the government.
The petitioners argue a valid false claim allegation must show a claim was presented directly to the U.S. government. The Ohio District Court agreed and found in favor of Allison Engine, but the U.S. Appeals Court for the 6th Circuit reversed that decision.
Both Grassley and the Solicitor General filed briefs in support of the 6th Circuit decision. Other groups, including the American Hospital Association, the American Health Care Association and National Center for Assisted Living filed briefs supporting the lower court ruling.
The case is scheduled for oral arguments later this month.
Click here to read Grassley's amicus brief and click here to read the Solicitor General's amicus brief.
With an effective compliance plan in place and diligent staff aware of the False Claims Act's requirements, your facility will have a stronger line of defense that can protect against FCA liability. "The Healthcare Compliance Professional's Guide to the False Claims Act" provides strategies to train employees to recognize their roles and responsibilities, and gain additional insight through case studies that demonstrate what the government has done to invoke the FCA to prosecute providers. Click here to find out more and order your copy.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
Comments
0 comments on “Supreme Court hears argument on scope of False Claims Act ”
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Q&A: Acute respiratory failure diagnosis does not require intubation
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- Oxygen Cylinder Storage Requirements
- Q&A: Acute respiratory failure diagnosis does not require intubation
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- Understand the spine to code back procedures correctly
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Hospitals are not bound by InterQual criteria for determining patient status
- Searched
