False Claims Act Liability – Conditions of Participation and Conditions of Payment
Friday, June 24th, 20167th Circuit Law on False Certification Completely Changed Overnight
Up until June 16, 2016, the law in the 7th Circuit was very clear; violations of conditions of participation did not support a potential False Claims Act claim. Only violation of a specific condition of payment could support potential liability.
That all changed with a decision of the United States Supreme Court that was issued on June 16, 2016. In a case arising out of the Massachusetts Medicaid program, the Supreme Court held that under the right circumstances, the violation of a condition of participation can give rise to False Claims Act liability. Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/universal-health-services-v-united-states-ex-rel-escobar/
In rejecting the distinction between conditions of payment and conditions of participation. Instead, in the Court’s opinion “what matters is not the label that the Government attaches to a requirement, but whether the defendant knowingly violated a requirement that the defendant knows is material to the Government’s payment decision.”
When evaluating the FCA’s materiality requirement, the Government’s decision to expressly identify a provision as a condition of payment is relevant, but not automatically dispositive. A misrepresentation cannot be deemed material merely because the Government designates compliance with a particular requirement as a condition of payment. Nor is the government’s option to decline to pay if it knew of the defendant’s noncompliance sufficient for a finding of materiality. Materiality also cannot be found where the noncompliance is minor or insubstantial.
The net effect of the decision is to case uncertainty over the false certification analysis. At least in the 7th Circuit, prior to the Court’s decision, we at least knew that only failures in condition of payment could support potential False Claims Act liability. Simple violation’s of conditions of participation could not support such a claim. Now we are told that violation of a condition of participation can result in a False Claim if it is “material” to the Government’s payment decision. The standard no requires analysis of each situation under the “materiality” requirement.
People in the health care industry know that violations of conditions of participation happen frequently. Facilities often receive citations, and must correct deficiencies. When those deficiencies can result in False Claims is now quite nebulous.
