Per-Referral Payments to a Physician-Owned DME Supplier
You are the compliance officer for a 14-physician orthopedic group. Nine days ago an anonymous hotline report alleged that the group's former office manager negotiated an arrangement with a nearby durable medical equipment (DME) supplier: the supplier paid the group $75 for every patient referred for a knee brace, invoiced as 'marketing support.' Physicians referred 212 patients over 14 months, and records show $16,400 was received before the payments stopped. One group physician holds a 10% ownership interest in the DME supplier and referred 61 of those patients. Claims were paid by original Medicare (about 70%), a Medicare Advantage plan, and two commercial carriers. The office manager resigned four months ago. The CEO wants to 'send the money back and move on' before a payer audit scheduled in eight weeks. Your compliance plan gives you authority to investigate but requires board approval for any disclosure.
1. Characterize the group's exposure under the Anti-Kickback Statute and the physician self-referral (Stark) law. Why does the 'marketing support' label not control?
Read the worked answer
The label is irrelevant; the OIG and courts look at the substance of the money flow. A fixed $75 per referred patient is remuneration that varies with the volume of referrals, so the arrangement cannot fit the personal services and management contracts safe harbor, which requires aggregate compensation set in advance in writing, at fair market value, and not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of referrals. Every Medicare and Medicare Advantage claim for a brace referred under this arrangement is potentially tainted by an AKS violation, which carries civil monetary penalties, treble damages, and exclusion. Commercial claims fall outside the AKS but may violate state fee-splitting and referral statutes and the payer contracts.
Stark is a separate and in some ways simpler theory. DME is a designated health service. The 10% owner is a referring physician with a financial relationship with the entity furnishing the DHS, and the in-office ancillary services exception expressly excludes DME, so no exception is available for his 61 referrals. Stark is strict liability - intent is irrelevant - and each of those claims is a potential False Claims Act violation because Stark violations are deemed false claims. Note the 60-day overpayment clock runs from when you identified the problem, not from the October audit.
2. The CEO wants to refund and close the matter. Outline the investigative and repayment steps you would take in the next 30 days, and identify when the 60-day overpayment clock started.
Read the worked answer
The 60-day clock under the Social Security Act begins when the group, acting through any person with authority, has actual knowledge of an overpayment or acts in deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard of it. A bare hotline allegation may not start it, but once your review corroborated a per-referral payment tied to claims, it started, and you should document that date in writing.
Steps: (1) Preserve documents - emails, invoices, the 'marketing' agreement, referral logs - and issue a litigation hold; interview the current staff who processed the invoices and the physician-owner. (2) Suspend any residual contact with the supplier and confirm payments have stopped. (3) Build a claim-level schedule: all 212 referrals by payer and date, flagging the 61 owner referrals, so you can quantify the amount paid attributable to tainted claims - not the $16,400 received, which is a different number. (4) Do not let the CEO unilaterally decide to refund; engage counsel to direct the work under privilege. (5) Return the identified overpayment to each payer through its process (the Medicare administrative contractor's voluntary refund and the Medicare Advantage plan's recovery process) and make the written report, all within 60 days of identification. (6) Notify the board, because your compliance plan requires approval for disclosure. Waiting for the payer audit is not a lawful option: retaining an identified overpayment past the deadline creates a separate reverse false claim.
3. How would you decide between OIG self-disclosure, CMS self-referral disclosure, and quiet repayment? What factors drive that choice?
Read the worked answer
Quiet repayment resolves the 60-day obligation but not the false-claims and exclusion exposure, and the group cannot assume the payer or a whistleblower will stay silent - the former office manager is a known risk.
Route the conduct by theory. Because this is a per-referral payment with potential AKS intent, it fits the OIG Self-Disclosure Protocol, which requires a full narrative, a damages calculation using a defensible methodology, and cooperation, and which offers a path to a negotiated resolution and reduced multipliers. The CMS Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol exists for Stark-only matters and would not cover the AKS theory. If both theories apply, OIG disclosure generally governs; consider disclosing to OIG and coordinating the Stark piece.
Factors that should drive the recommendation: whether the conduct is on OIG's work plan or a known enforcement priority; whether the physician-owner knowingly participated (intent matters to AKS but not Stark); the strength of the damages calculation; the presence of a pre-existing compliance program and hotline, which mitigates; the 61 owner referrals, which raise the stakes; and the group's ability to fund a settlement. Document the alternatives considered, obtain board approval, and pair the disclosure with a corrective action plan - training, contract review, exclusion screening, and a referral-arrangement inventory - so the resolution has demonstrable remediation behind it.