Health Law Advisor

On July 7, 2025, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) for the Department of Health and Human Services published Advisory Opinion 25-08 (“AO 25-08”), an unfavorable and strongly worded opinion interpreting the “arranging for” language in the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”).

The AO involves a proposed arrangement for a medical device company (the “Requestor”) to pay a third-party vendor to access an electronic billing portal operated by the vendor that is used by some of the Requestor’s customers for certain billing operations. In issuing the unfavorable opinion, the OIG said the proposed arrangement “presents anti-competitive risks and risks of inappropriate steering” and characterized the arrangement as being “for the purpose of accessing referrals” from hospital customers that are clients of the vendor.

The Requestor in this AO is a medical device company that supplies "bill-only" products to hospitals. “Bill-only” products are items that are not part of a hospital’s regularly purchased inventory but rather are purchased in real time, such as when a surgeon is selecting the right size or component of a device to use during a surgery. According to the AO, what typically happens with “bill-only” products is that a representative of the medical device company delivers a selection of items to a hospital customer the day before or the day of a patient’s procedure so that the surgeon can select the specific items needed for that specific patient. Some of these “bill-only” items are used in procedures reimbursable by federal health care programs.

On July 2, 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued Advisory Opinion 25-07 (AO 25-07), a favorable advisory opinion involving sponsored tests.

Sponsored tests are medical diagnostic tests or laboratory services whose cost is directly or indirectly paid for, in whole or in part, by a third party (often a pharmaceutical manufacturer or medical device company or related company), rather than by the patient, their insurance, or the health care provider performing the test. Typically, companies agree to pay for sponsored tests because they are necessary for a patient to access or use the company’s therapy but pose high out of pocket costs on the patient. Sponsored tests are frequently used to help match a patient to a specific drug or therapy available from the pharmaceutical manufacturer or medical device company, including true companion diagnostics, or to monitor therapeutic efficacy or to identify dangerous side effects of a prescribed therapy.  

The OIG previously issued two opinions, AO 24-12  and AO 22-06, that approved sponsored test arrangements in which pharmaceutical manufacturers offered free genetic testing and genetic counseling services to patients suspected of having rare conditions for which the manufacturers produced approved medications. Under the facts in these opinions, the genetic test results alone did not directly determine whether the manufacturer's drug would be prescribed.

On June 30, 2025, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services posted Advisory Opinion 25-05 (AO 25-05) to its website. AO 25-05 is a favorable opinion that allows a medical device manufacturer to reimburse purchasers of its device for actual costs up to $2,500 incurred from needle stick injuries caused by failure of the device without running afoul of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS).

According to AO 25-05, the device at issue is used to administer immunizations and other drugs to patients via injections and is more expensive than typical needles. The device has a safety mechanism to protect the user that covers the needle except when the needle penetrates patient tissue during the injection. When users experience a needle stick injury, their employers usually cover the associated costs, including retraining staff, staff absences and replacement, counseling for injured workers, and possible additional costs in the event of a lawsuit or higher insurance premiums or workers compensation premiums.

On June 20, 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) issued an unfavorable advisory opinion - OIG Advisory Opinion 25-04 (“AO 25-04”). AO 25-04 discusses a proposal by a medical device company (the “Requestor”) to cover the costs for its customers—hospitals, health systems, and ambulatory surgery centers—to have a third-party company screen and monitor the Requestor for exclusion from federal healthcare programs. The OIG concluded that the proposed arrangement would potentially generate prohibited remuneration under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”).

According to the advisory opinion, some of the Requestor’s customers were either requesting or requiring, as a condition of doing business, that the Requestor pay a third-party company (the “Company”) to screen and monitor them for exclusion from federal healthcare programs. Under the proposed arrangement, the Company would charge the Requestor (and not its customers) an annual subscription fee for each customer receiving these screening and monitoring reports. The Requestor estimated this would amount to approximately $450,000 in annual fees, paid directly to the Company. The Requestor would not be a party to any agreements between its customers and the Company.

On April 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision in a case involving the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) and marketing services that the court framed as an appeal “test[ing] some of the outer boundaries of the [AKS]….” In United States vs. Mark Sorensen, the Court of Appeals overturned the judgment of conviction against Mark Sorensen from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In the district court case, Sorensen, the owner of SyMed Inc., a durable medical equipment (“DME”) distributor, was found guilty of one count of conspiracy and three counts of offering and paying kickbacks in return for the referral of Medicare beneficiaries to his DME company, which the United States claimed resulted in SyMed’s fraudulently billing $87 million and receiving $23.6 million in payments from Medicare. The district court judge denied Sorensen’s post-trial motions for acquittal and for a new trial, finding that the evidence regarding willfulness allowed the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Sorensen “knew from the beginning of the agreement in 2015 that the percentage fee structure and purchase of the [doctors’] orders violated the law.” He was sentenced to 42 months in prison and ordered to forfeit $1.8 million.

Six months from the date of closing. That’s how long acquiring companies have under the newly announced Department of Justice (DOJ) Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) Safe Harbor Policy to disclose misconduct discovered in the context of a merger or acquisition – whether discovered pre or post-acquisition.  And the acquiring company has one year from the date of closing to remediate, as well as provide restitution to any victims and disgorge  any profits.

Over the last two years, the DOJ has made clear its priority to encourage companies to self-disclose misconduct aiming to ...

When the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (“PHE”) ended on May 11, 2023, many physician groups furnishing certain medical equipment, devices, and/or supplies to their Medicare patients became in violation of the federal Physician Self-Referral Law (the “Stark Law”), which has draconian penalties, such as clawback of Medicare payments plus additional stiff monetary penalties and possible exclusion from participation in federal health care programs. 

During the COVID-19 PHE, CMS issued temporary waivers, including a waiver of the “location requirement” of the In-Office Ancillary Services (“IOAS”) exception. That waiver allowed physician groups that furnish certain durable medical equipment, orthotics, prosthetic devices – including intermittent urinary catheters (“IUCs”) – and other medical supplies (collectively referred to here as “DME”) to provide home delivery of such DME to their Medicare patients without facing sanctions for violating the Stark Law.[1] With the end of the PHE having occurred over three months ago, that temporary waiver of sanctions ended and can no longer be relied upon for legal compliance with the Stark Law.[2]     

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently published a new frequently asked question (FAQ) and advisory opinion addressing how to analyze arrangements that may involve providing cash, cash equivalents, and/or gift cards to Medicare and/or Medicaid beneficiaries under the beneficiary inducements prohibition provision in the Civil Monetary Penalty Law (Beneficiary Inducements CMP) and Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS).

Announced in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Rural Emergency Hospitals (REHs) will be a new type of Medicare provider starting January 1, 2023.  REHs are meant to help address the stressed health care system of rural providers by providing an option to closure for distressed critical access hospitals (CAHs) and small rural hospitals.

Existing CAHs and rural hospitals with fewer than 50 beds will be eligible to convert to an REH.  CMS is streamlining this process so that this conversion to be an REH can be accomplished through a change of information on an existing Medicare 855A enrollment rather than through a new provider application, which carries potentially significant delays and potential gaps in payment.  REHs are designed to provide primarily emergency department, observation, and outpatient services.  Because REHs will not provide inpatient care, an area that often creates a significant financial and operational burden on CAHs and small rural hospitals, REHs will allow locally-delivered healthcare to continue to be furnished by existing providers.

On August 19, 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) posted Advisory Opinion 22-16 (“AO 22-16”) to its website, a favorable opinion concluding that the OIG would not impose sanctions in connection with a program that offered $25 gift cards to Medicare Advantage (“MA”) plan enrollees who completed an online educational program about the potential risk, benefits, and expectations related to surgery. AO 22-16 is the latest in a string of recent OIG advisory opinions addressing arrangements involving remuneration to Federal health care program beneficiaries - the ninth such advisory opinion in 2022 alone.

The company that requested this advisory opinion contracts with Medicare Advantage Organizations (“MAOs”) to offer the educational program to MA plan enrollees and charges the MAOs a per-member, per-month fee for the program. MA plan enrollees who take the educational program and complete a survey receive a $25 gift card, which may be for a big box store or online retailer that offers a wide variety of items. The company that offers the educational program sends mailings and email correspondence to MA plan enrollees about the educational program but does not advertise or market the program to individuals who are not enrollees of a MA plan that has contracted with the company. The MAOs are prohibited by their contract with the company from including information about the gift cards offered under the program in marketing materials to prospective enrollees.

On November 12, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) released final guidance confirming that hospitals can be co-located with other hospitals or healthcare providers.

CMS’ aim for the guidance is to balance flexibility in service provision for providers with ensuring patient confidence in CMS’ quality of care oversight functions.

The final guidance provides direction to state surveyors in the evaluation of a hospital’s compliance with the Medicare Conditions of Participation (“CoPs”) when it is sharing space or contracted staff through service arrangements with another co-located hospital or healthcare provider.  CMS also reiterated a key tenet of co-location arrangements: that each provider must independently meet its applicable CoPs, but, overall, the final guidance is less prescriptive than the draft guidance CMS released in May 2019, and in its wake raises new questions for providers.