July 23, 2014

Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) Issues Updated Self-Disclosure Protocol

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) has published an updated Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol (the “Updated SDP”) that offers health care providers guidance on how to disclose potential fraud, avoid prosecution, and mitigate potential penalties under the OIG’s civil money penalty (CMP) authority

The Updated SDP, first published in a 1998 notice, is a welcome, if long-overdue, comprehensive revision that combines information described in three OIG Open Letters to Health Care Providers (one of which notably explained that the OIG would no longer accept disclosures of a violation of the physician self-referral law (“Stark Law”) without a “colorable” violation of the Anti-kickback Statute), a2012 solicitation for comments and recommendations (discussed in more detail here) about how to revise the SDP so that it provides “useful guidance to the health care industry,” as well as other informal internal procedures that have not yet been made publicly available.  The Updated SDP supersedes and replaces the original SDP and the three Open Letters.

Among the many notable features of the Updated SDP are:

  • Acknowledgment of the OIG’s long-standing practice of using a minimum penalty multiplier of 1.5 times single damages;

  • Clarification that all providers subject to the OIG’s CMP authorities, including pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, are eligible for the SDP process;

  • A reminder that potential successor liability can arise when one provider acquires another provider’s business;

  • The requirement to acknowledge potential violations of law, and to identify the specific laws potentially violated (i.e., a general reference to federal law or the Social Security Act is insufficient);

  • New requirement that as a precondition to acceptance by the OIG into the SDP, the provider waives the statute of limitations or similar defenses to any administrative action that the OIG could file;

  • New content requirements for self-disclosures involving false billing, excluded persons, and Anti-kickback and Stark Law violations;

  • Acknowledgment of the OIG’s long-standing practice to settle Anti-kickback violations based on a multiplier of the “remuneration conferred by the referral recipient to the individual or entity making the referral”; and

  • A minimum settlement of $50,000 to resolve Anti-kickback-related disclosures (consistent with the information published in the OIG’s 2009 Open Letter) and a minimum settlement of $10,000 for any other disclosures.

In addition, the Updated SDP addresses the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (“CMS”) proposed 60-day overpayment rule, which will require providers to notify and return an overpayment within 60 days of identifying the overpayment (the “Overpayment Rule”).  The Overpayment Rule proposes to suspend overpayment reporting obligations “when OIG acknowledges receipt of a submission to the OIG SDP” and “until a settlement agreement is entered, or the provider or supplier withdraws or is removed from the OIG SDP.”   The OIG states that additional guidance will be provided with respect to the Overpayment Rule after CMS publishes a final rule.

Among the disappointments in the Updated SDP is the OIG’s continued unwillingness to allow providers to net-out underpayments as part of the disclosing party’s calculation of damages.  Presumably, the OIG will continue to be willing to receive this information separately as part of the settlement process.

Health care providers have long understood the significant challenges and risks presented by self-disclosure and thus should take some comfort in the OIG’s acknowledgement that self-disclosure is a “significant decision.”  The Updated SDP provides greater procedural clarity but still raises the bar on submission requirements because it does not cure some existing flaws in the process.

©1994-2014 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Thomas Crane, Health Care Attorney, Mintz Leving Law Firm

Tom is nationally recognized for his experience with fraud and abuse. Practicing in Boston and Washington, DC, he advises national and local clients on structuring complex strategic affiliation arrangements and transactions to comply with the applicable fraud and abuse laws as well as the variety of other regulatory requirements to meet today’s health reform challenges. His work in defending clients against anti-kickback, Stark Law, false claims, and whistleblower allegations includes litigation, internal investigations, voluntary disclosures, and negotiating settlements and...


About the Author

Nili Yolin, Regulatory, Health Care, Attorney, Mintz Levin, Law Firm
Of Counsel

Nili focuses her practice on complex transactions, regulatory compliance, and graduate medical education matters. She has extensive experience in health care transactional matters such as hospital joint ventures, mergers, acquisitions, and affiliations. She also assists proprietary and tax-exempt hospital systems with medical staff matters, organizational documents, and negotiating agreements with third-party vendors.

Her regulatory practice involves assisting clients in the development of corporate compliance programs, structuring proposed transactions, and business...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.