Advertisement

May 22, 2013

OIG Issues Advisory Opinion RE: Waiver of Co-Payments by Ambulance Suppliers

On September 11, 2012, the HHS Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) published Advisory Opinion No. 12-11.  The Advisory Opinion imposes significant restrictions on the ability of a private ambulance supplier to waive the collection of co-payments and other cost-sharing amounts for services rendered to residents of a municipality.  In addition, the Advisory Opinion significantly narrows the OIG’s earlier findings in OIG Advisory Opinion No. 99-1, which also dealt with co-payment collection obligations under an arrangement between a municipality and a private ambulance supplier providing services to the municipality’s residents.

Under the facts reviewed in Advisory Opinion No. 12-11, the private ambulance supplier provided Basic Life Support (“BLS”) ambulance services in a particular state.  In the state where the private BLS ambulance supplier is located, volunteer first aid squads do not typically charge residents for cost sharing amounts (such as co-payments) associated with emergency BLS ambulance transports.

Under the proposed arrangement discussed in the Advisory Opinion, the private BLS ambulance supplier would enter into agreements with various municipalities to provide part-time emergency ambulance services.  Under the agreements, the private BLS ambulance supplier would provide BLS ambulance services to residents of a municipality during certain specified blocks of time (e.g., 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on a weekday) when a volunteer ambulance squad was unable to provide coverage for that block of time.  The private BLS ambulance supplier would bill Medicare and other third party insurers for these transports, but would waive all cost-sharing amounts, a practice known as “insurance-only” billing.  The private BLS ambulance supplier certified that municipalities with which it would contract to provide part-time emergency ambulance services were requiring the private BLS ambulance supplier to waive all cost-sharing amounts owed by the municipality’s residents as a condition of the municipality awarding the private BLS ambulance supplier the contract to provide the part-time emergency ambulance services.  In addition, the municipalities would not pay the private BLS ambulance supplier the waived cost-sharing amounts on their residents’ behalf.

The OIG found that the proposed arrangement potentially violated the anti-kickback statute.  The OIG made the following findings with regard to the proposed arrangement:

Under the Proposed Arrangement, the municipalities would effectuate the routine waiver of cost-sharing amounts by: (1) requiring BLS Supplier to bill residents ‘insurance only,’ and (2) not paying owed cost-sharing amounts on their residents’ behalf.  In short, if the municipalities wish to assume cost-sharing obligations owed to an independent ambulance supplier, such as BLS Supplier, for ambulance services provided to their residents on a part-time basis, they must pay the owed amounts.  Failure on the part of the municipalities to make the payments—or to permit BLS Supplier to bill residents for them—implicates the anti-kickback statute.

[footnote omitted]

The OIG  distinguished the circumstances analyzed in Advisory Opinion No. 99-1, which also involved the waiver of co-payments and other cost-sharing amounts by a private BLS ambulance supplier providing back-up emergency ambulance services in situations where no volunteer first aid squad was immediately available to respond.  In the circumstances discussed in that Advisory Opinion, the volunteer first aid squad was at all times the primary supplier of BLS ambulance services, and back-up services were provided by the private BLS ambulance supplier only in isolated and unanticipated circumstances where the volunteer first aid squad was unavailable (e.g., where the volunteer first aid squad was already preoccupied responding to existing calls in its service area).  In contrast, the OIG found that the private BLS ambulance supplier discussed under the facts of Advisory Opinion No. 12-11 would itself be the primary supplier of BLS ambulance services during designated time slots, rather than the volunteer ambulance squad.  The OIG concluded that the proposed agreement to provide BLS emergency services on a scheduled basis as the primary supplier of emergency ambulance services, even if part-time, distinguished the facts of the proposed arrangements from those discussed in OIG Advisory Opinion No. 99-1.

Private BLS ambulance providers and municipalities would be well advised to review their current arrangements (or proposed arrangements that are being negotiated) to ensure that the private  BLS ambulance supplier is not providing scheduled BLS ambulance services under circumstances in which the private BLS ambulance supplier is required to waive (or offers to waive) collection of co-payments and deductibles.  While the Advisory Opinion is technically only applicable to the requester, private BLS ambulance suppliers that ignore the analysis contained in the Advisory Opinion place themselves at risk of being found in violation of the anti-kickback statute, having fines and penalties imposed and exposure to the possibility of whistleblower lawsuits and actions by potential qui tam relators.

© 2013 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved

About the Author

Shareholder

Ms. Christian's practice is devoted to Health Care Law and legal issues facing Health Care facilities licensed professionals and non-profit organizations. She has over twenty years of experience counseling clients on legal issues facing the modern health care and non-profit communities.

732-219-5485

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.