Court decision upholds provider sovereignty over determinations of medical necessity

Original story posted on: September 18, 2019

  • Product Headline: ON-DEMAND WEBCAST
  • Product Image: Product Image
  • Product Description:

    Inpatient or Observation: A Proven Strategy to Avoid Medical Necessity Denials

Ruling focused on key hospice admission.

Last week, the 11th Circuit (the federal appeals court for the Southeastern United States) issued a decision in the AsceraCare case.    

We have been waiting for this decision since the case was argued two and a half years ago. The key question in the case is: if a hospice provides care to a patient based on a physician’s reasonable conclusion that the patient is terminally ill, can the hospice face False Claim Act liability if another physician working for the contractor disagrees? 

The trial court had originally concluded that such claims could still be false, but over the course of the trial, the judge changed his mind. Upon the conclusion of the trial, the judge reversed himself and ruled that as a matter of law, if two reasonable physicians could differ about the issue, the claim could not be false.

That ruling really bothered the government, because it makes it very difficult to make a False Claims Act case that is based on physician judgment. On appeal, the 11th Circuit rejected the government’s arguments and agreed with the trial court, ruling that when coverage hinges on a physician’s medical judgment, as long as a physician holds a sincere belief, a fact that another physician might disagree is irrelevant.

Procedurally, the 11th Circuit did vacate part of the trial court’s order and remanded the case back to the trial court, but that portion of the decision relates to whether AsceraCare had a good-faith basis for relying on the judgment of its physicians. The government asserts that there was evidence that the physicians were not given all of the relevant information and that other information was withheld from the physicians. The court is to consider that question on the remand.

Most of the decision focuses on the False Claims Act, so it is not clear how much of the decision is applicable to a standard Medicare overpayment. The government also brought claims for unjust enrichment, arguing that the hospice received money for unnecessary services. The appeals court decision does not address that claim. But I want to stress that the analysis here is similar to analysis made under the Medicare treating physician rule.

In Medicare overpayment cases, courts have said that the judgment of the treating physician is entitled to deference. This decision reinforces the idea that in a medical necessity case if you are capable of finding an expert to support your physician, you should be able to prevail unless the government can show that someone was intentionally withholding information from the physicians, or your physician was lying about his or her opinion.

The bottom line is that if reasonable people can differ about the medical necessity of service, there should not be any liability under the False Claims Act. In fact, while the AscereCare case doesn’t address the question, rulings on other cases applying the “treating physician rule” have indicated that there should not be any overpayment liability or a duty to refund.

There are a few other interesting statements associated with this case, and they will be the subject of a future article. 

Programming Note: Listen to David Glaser’s live reports every Monday on Monitor Monday, 10-10:30 a.m. EST.

David M. Glaser, Esq.

David M. Glaser, Esq., is a shareholder in Fredrikson & Byron’s Health Law Group. David helps clinics, hospitals, and other healthcare entities negotiate the maze of healthcare regulations, providing advice about risk management, reimbursement, and business planning issues. He has considerable experience in healthcare regulation and litigation, including compliance, criminal and civil fraud investigations, and reimbursement disputes. David’s goal is to explain the government’s enforcement position and to analyze whether the law supports this position. David is a popular panelist on Monitor Mondays and a member of the RACmonitor editorial board.


This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Related Articles

  • CMS Issues Early Release of MA Advance Notice
    The move contrasts with shorter timelines associated with the releases of the IPPS, OPPS rules. In an apparent effort to make providers’ lives a little easier, federal officials earlier this week issued Part I of the 2022 Medicare Advantage (MA)…
  • New Settlement Demonstrates New Fraud Type in Medicare Advantage program – Inflation of bids
    Two payers allegedly inflated their bids. Earlier this month, two Independence Blue Cross (IBC) subsidiaries in Pennsylvania agreed to pay $2.25 million to resolve allegations that they defrauded the Medicare Advantage (MA) program and violated the False Claims Act by…
  • CMS Releases Long-Awaited 2021 FY IPPS Final Rule
    Medicare spending on acute-care inpatient hospital services will increase by about $3.5 billion in FY 2021 As the healthcare industry continues to be buffeted by the unrelenting coronavirus pandemic, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has released the…