Health Law Advisor

In the latest in a series of recent cases involving the “but-for” causation standard for Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) claims, Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has dismissed United States, et al., ex rel. Nolan, et al. v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., 2025 WL 2713747 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 22, 2025) pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b).

Judge Crenshaw weighed in Nolan whether the relators, co-owners of Pathologists Laboratory P.C. (“PLPC”), had plausibly alleged that: 1) defendant HCA Healthcare Inc. (“HCA”) solicited or received “remuneration” for purposes of an AKS violation; and 2) PLPC or the second lab submitted claims “resulting from” an illegal kickback for purposes of a False Claims Act (FCA). He ultimately determined that the relators had not, in fact, plausibly alleged that HCA either solicited or received “remuneration” for purposes of the AKS.

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 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 January 6, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a defendant laboratory’s motion for summary judgment in a False Claims Act (FCA)/Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) case brought by a physician objecting to the lab’s testing practices and its use of independent contractors paid on commission. Judge Patti B. Saris held that plaintiffs in FCA cases must establish that “but for” the payment of illegal remuneration in violation of the AKS, the claim would not have been submitted. Applying the “but-for” standard, Judge Saris dismissed OMNI Healthcare Inc. v. MD Spine Solutions LLC, et al. because the record did not support that the independent contractor status of some of the lab’s sales representatives or their conduct unduly influenced any provider’s decision to purchase the product.

Adoption of “But-For” Causation in FCA Cases

There is a circuit split regarding whether FCA plaintiffs must prove that “but for” the AKS violation, a claim would not have been submitted. Requiring “but-for” causation poses a significantly greater burden for plaintiffs seeking to advance FCA claims because they must show the kickback actually affected what good, item, or service was provided.

In the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Eighth Circuits, the heightened “but-for” causation must be established. The Third Circuit has adopted a less rigorous standard, requiring only a showing that at least one of the claims sought reimbursement for medical care that was provided in violation of the AKS. Plaintiffs in circuits with no clear precedent often argue for the application of the more plaintiff-friendly standards of the Third Circuit and use that ambiguity as leverage in negotiating settlement agreements.

On December 27, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in U.S. ex rel. Camburn v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation that a relator adequately pleads a False Claims Act (“FCA”) cause of action premised on violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) by alleging, with sufficient particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) (“Rule 9(b)”), that at least one purpose (rather than the sole or primary purpose) of the alleged kickback scheme was to induce the purchase of federally reimbursable health care products or services.^[1] In doing so, the Second Circuit joins seven other Circuit Courts—the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits—in adopting the “at least one purpose” rule. This ruling lowers the bar in the Second Circuit for relators pleading AKS-based FCA claims. 

Interplay Between FCA and AKS Violations

Under the AKS, “a claim that includes items or services resulting from a violation [of the AKS] … constitutes a false or fraudulent claim” under the FCA.^[2]

The AKS prohibits persons from, among other things, “knowingly and willfully” soliciting or receiving “any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate) directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind—

On March 22, 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) updated its Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”), drafting 13  FAQs aimed at easing the transition from COVID-era flexibilities to the end of the Public Health Emergency (“PHE”) on May 11, 2023. These FAQs arrive on the tail of OIG’s March 10, 2023 COVID-19 Public Health Emergency policy statement, which announced that the expiration of the PHE in May also marks the end of flexibilities extended during the crisis.  The updated FAQs offer a glimpse into how OIG investigations and enforcement might play out after the end of the PHE.  These FAQs address subjects including “General Questions Regarding Certain Fraud and Abuse Authorities,” the “Application of Certain Fraud and Abuse Authorities to Certain Types of Arrangements,” and “Compliance Considerations.”  

The vast majority of the principles articulated in the updated FAQs will undoubtedly be familiar to many.  Generally speaking, the updated FAQs restate or clarify longstanding OIG policy.  The updated FAQs are more than reiteration, however; they offer condensed policy and explanation in a single location, and demonstrate that for the most part, investigations and enforcement may return to the pre-PHE status quo. 

It has been four years since Congress enacted the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act (“EKRA”), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 220. EKRA initially targeted patient brokering and kickback schemes within the addiction treatment and recovery spaces. However, since EKRA was expansively drafted to also apply to clinical laboratories (it applies to improper referrals for any “service”, regardless of the payor), public as well as private insurance plans and even self-pay patients fall within the reach of the statute.

In this episode of the Diagnosing Health Care Podcast:  The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") and the Office of Inspector General ("OIG") of the Department of Health and Human Services have at last published their long-awaited companion final rules advancing value-based care. The rules present significant changes to the regulatory framework of the federal physician self-referral law (commonly referred to as the “Stark Law”) and to the federal health care program’s Anti-Kickback Statute, or “AKS.”

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Anjali ...

The Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) for the Department of Health and Human Services recently issued an Advisory Opinion that provides insight into how the agency evaluates arrangements that deal with the integration of technology, medicine, and patient monitoring under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”). In Advisory Opinion No. 19-02, OIG evaluated whether a pharmaceutical manufacturer could temporarily loan a limited-functionality smartphone to financially needy patients enrolled in federal health care programs. OIG concluded that the proposed ...

Clinical laboratories need to review how they compensate sales personnel following the passage of the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 (“EKRA”) (Section 8122 of the SUPPORT Act) which is effective as of October 24, 2018.  The SUPPORT Act is a combination of more than 70 bills aimed at fighting the opioid epidemic, with EKRA intended to address patient brokering in exchange for kickbacks of individuals with substance abuse disorders.  However, as written, EKRA is far more expansive.

EKRA adds an all payor (public and private) anti-kickback rule to the health care fraud ...

Recent settlement agreements between the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and two urologist business partners suggests that the government may be focusing increased enforcement efforts on the Stark Law’s “group practice” requirements and the Stark exception for “in-office ancillary services.”  The urologists agreed to pay over $1 million to resolve the allegations.

In early January 2018, the DOJ entered into settlement agreements with Dr. Aytac Apaydin and Stephen Worsham to resolve allegations that the physicians submitted improper claims to ...