Advertisement

May 22, 2013

OIG Advisory Opinion 12-05 Approves Consumer Rewards Program

In OIG Advisory Opinion 12-05, the OIG found that a consumer rewards program (the “Program”) offered by a supermarket chain with in-store and independent pharmacies (the “Requestor”) would not be subject to enforcement under the Anti-Kickback Statute (the “Kickback Statute”) or the beneficiary inducement prohibition found in the civil monetary penalties law (the “CMP Law”).  Under the Program, customers who signed up for the Requestor’s free loyalty card could earn gasoline discounts based on the amount spent on purchases in the Requestor’s retail stores and pharmacies, including cost-sharing amounts paid in connection with items covered by federal health care programs.

The OIG concluded that the gasoline rewards would satisfy the terms of a new exception to the CMP Law for retailer rewards included among the provisionsof the Affordable Care Act.  Specifically, (i) the gasoline rewards consist of coupons, rebates or other rewards from a retailer, (ii) the Program would be offered on equal terms to all customers at the Requestor’s supermarkets and pharmacies, and (iii) the offer of the gasoline rewards would not be tied to the provision of other items or services reimbursed by the Medicare or Medicaid programs.  Of key important to the OIG was the lack of any tie to federally reimbursable items on either the “redeeming” or the “earning” side of the Program’s rewards transaction.  Customers could redeem the rewards only on gasoline purchases, which are not federally reimbursable items or services, and prescription drug purchases would not be required to earn the rewards.  Prescription drug purchases would be treated the same as any other purchases in the Requestor’s stores for purposes of earning rewards and would not result in higher or different rewards than dollars spent on grocery items.

This Advisory Opinion is the third to invoke one of the new ACA exceptions to the CMP Law (it had previously done so in Advisory Opinions 11-01 and 11-06, as detailed in a previous post) and appears to indicate that the OIG will support providers taking advantage of these beneficiary-friendly exceptions even though it has yet to promulgate regulations or offer any guidance.    

The OIG also determined that the Program would pose a minimal risk of fraud and abuse under the Anti-Kickback Statute.  Because the Program would not require customers to purchase prescriptions to earn rewards and would not offer any specific incentive for transferring prescriptions to the Requestor’s pharmacies, the OIG concluded that the risk of steering federal health care program beneficiaries to the Requestor’s supermarkets and pharmacies was low.  The importance the OIG places on avoiding beneficiary steering is underscored by the Department of Justice’s recent $7.9 million settlement with Walgreens to resolve allegations that Walgreens offered $25 gift cards to induce beneficiaries to transfer their prescriptions to Walgreens pharmacies.

The OIG also concluded that the Program was unlikely to result in overutilization or increased federal health care program costs.  The Program would not involve the waiver or reduction of cost-sharing amounts and any cost-sharing amounts counting toward a customer’s rewards would result from prescription drugs already prescribed.

This Advisory Opinion should provide helpful guidance to health plans, providers, and pharmacy benefit managers looking to structure compliant rewards programs.  The OIG’s guidance indicates that if federally reimbursable items are avoided on both the redeeming and earning side of a rewards program, the corresponding beneficiary inducement risks can be significantly reduced.  In addition, specific incentives for beneficiaries to transfer their business from one provider to another should be avoided.  Finally, it is helpful that the OIG recognized that there is a limited risk of overutilization where a beneficiary has already been prescribed a drug or a specific course of treatment.  Plans and providers can look to these broad guidelines when structuring a variety of programs. 

©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Member

Theresa is a Member in the firm’s Health Law Section and is based in the DC office. Her practice involves a variety of transactional, regulatory, and fraud and abuse matters.

Theresa’s transactional experience focuses on advising health care clients on joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, service agreements, and corporate stock and asset acquisitions. She has served as corporate and regulatory counsel to retail pharmacy chains, pharmacy benefit managers, and health care providers in acquisitions, which included due diligence, licensing, change of ownership, Medicare...

202) 661-8710

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 www.NatLawReview.com 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. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or 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.