Michael S. Horn to be a Speaker at NBI Seminar, "Representing Your Client in Federal Court"
05.12.2016
Location: Newark, NJ
Featured Insights
![Do Your Monthly Checks to Avoid Fines and Risk of Exclusion from Federal Health Care Programs](/a/web/weJh2HMhJw2JqchmQV6WLF/8tzbyD/archer-website-categories-icons-advisories-watermark-bleed-01.png)
06.26.2024
Client Advisories
Do Your Monthly Checks to Avoid Fines and Risk of Exclusion from Federal Health Care Programs
Healthcare facilities are urged to remember to perform regular checks of both state and federal lists of excluded individuals and entities – i.e. persons or organizations who are prohibited from participating in federal and state health care programs – to ensure that their employees, independent contractors and vendors are not on such lists. As a general rule, federal health care programs such as Medicare will not pay for items or services which are furnished, ordered, prescribed, or supplied, whether directly or indirectly, by an individual or entity (i.e. a “Person”) who has been excluded from participation in that federal health care program. If a healthcare entity employs or engages an excluded Person and then bills a federal health care program for any items or services the excluded Person directly or indirectly furnished, ordered, or prescribed, it may also be subject to Civil Monetary Penalties (“CMP”) liability under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). It is important to note that the prohibition on services is broadly defined so as to include not only direct care, but also indirect services such as filling prescriptions, providing transportation services, and performing administrative and management services that are not separately billable. While OIG guidance does permit entities to employ/engage an excluded Person who does not provide any items or services paid for, directly or indirectly, by federal health care programs, doing so requires significant caution and a strict curtailing of their roles and responsibilities to ensure protection from future liabilities. While the regulations concerning exclusions have existed for almost fifty years, it is clear that they remain an important area of enforcement. Since 2023, the federal Office of Inspector General has issued over $2.5 million in CMPs to healthcare entities who have employed an excluded individual.In addition to the federal requirements surrounding excluded individuals, many states have not only adopted versions of the federal exclusion requirements, but have created their own exclusion criteria and penalties associated with employing an excluded individual. For this reason, participating providers should consult not only the federal guidance on exclusion checks, but also their state requirements. Best Practices to Ensure Compliance The responsibility of remaining compliant with state and federal exclusion provisions falls to the billing healthcare provider/ facility. The easiest method to ensure compliance is to maintain a robust compliance program within the entity through the development of policies and procedures that mandate routine checks of all employees and vendors against state and federal exclusion lists. Entities should also maintain records of these completed checks. Because the applicable lists are generally updated every thirty (30) days, it is recommended that entities perform checks upon engagement or employment, as well as every thirty (30) days thereafter. For healthcare providers in New Jersey, we recommend a monthly review of the following databases:
![Gianfranco Pietrafesa Argues LLC Issue in New Jersey Appellate Division](/a/web/bW5jjGoqX15FKL9dKikeq4/8tzbyZ/archer-website-categories-icons-news-watermark-bleed-01.png)
06.24.2024
Press Releases
Gianfranco Pietrafesa Argues LLC Issue in New Jersey Appellate Division
Gianfranco A. Pietrafesa, a partner in the firm, and a member of its Business Counseling and M&A groups, argued an appeal in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. He appeared on behalf of the New Jersey State Bar Association, which was amicus curiae (i.e., friend of the court) in the case. The Appellate Division recently issued its published opinion in the case where it confirmed that the New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act does not authorize an LLC to file a document to cancel a certificate of dissolution and/or termination, even if the certificate was filed erroneously. The NJSBA has released its Bar Report with commentary to the decision. According to Gianfranco, the decision is important because it establishes that a court order is necessary for an LLC to rescind a certificate of dissolution and/or termination and it provides guidelines on how to do so. In essence, an LLC would have to prove sufficient facts to convince a trial court to use its equitable powers to rescind such a certificate. Gianfranco was asked to write the legal brief and argue the appeal because he is considered an authority in NJ LLC law. He was a member of the select committee that drafted the New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act and he has written many articles and given many presentations on NJ’s LLC law.