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 laws concerning improper remuneration for patient referrals to, or in exchange for an individual using the services of, a recovery home, clinical treatment facility or clinical laboratory. This broad language enables the federal government to monitor provider arrangements intended to generate business for any laboratory services, not only those related to individuals in treatment for substance abuse disorders, payable by a federal health care program (“FHCP”) or commercial health insurer.
The prior version of the bill entitled “Opioid Crisis Response Act” (passed in the Senate on 9/17/18) did not include EKRA provisions, and it appears that laboratories were thrown into EKRA at the last minute, as multiple House bills proposing the addition of EKRA to the SUPPORT Act did not include laboratories. Congressman Pallone expressed his concerns with EKRA in that “[i]t did not go through regular order and was not properly vetted . . . it was added at the very last minute . . .” He further states that: “multiple stakeholders have raised concerns that the language does not do what we think it does. It may have unintended consequences.” This is evident in our review and analysis of the EKRA provisions.
With regard to payment arrangements with sales personnel, one statutory exemption provides that compensation paid to both W-2 employees and 1099 contractors would not violate EKRA if the payment is not determined by or does not vary by:
- the number of individuals referred;
- the number of tests or procedures performed; or
- the amount billed or received
By inclusion of the statutory exemption in EKRA, Congress indicates that payments to any employee or contractor related to the business they generate is prohibited unless the laboratory can meet the specific criteria under the three-prong exception.
As a comparison, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) prohibits improper remuneration “in return for referring an individual” or “purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for or recommending purchasing, leasing, or ordering any good, facility, service, or item” directly or indirectly reimbursable by a federal health care program. We know that the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) for the Department of Health and Human Services imposes a broad interpretation of the AKS (especially the phrase “arranging for or recommending”) and has taken the position that a pure marketing relationship to generate FHCP business could be a violation of the AKS. However, compliance with the regulatory criteria under the Bona Fide Employee safe harbor has been heavily relied upon in the health care industry to permit commission-based payments to sales personnel based on FHCP business they generate.
On its face, EKRA would seem to make such commission-based payments to W-2 sales personnel, otherwise permissible under the AKS safe harbors, a criminal act that can carry up to $200,000 in fines and imprisonment up to (10) years for each occurrence. However, Congress includes an exemption provision that states: “[t]his section shall not apply to conduct that is prohibited under section 1128B of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a–7b) [Anti-Kickback Statute].” We are uncertain why Congress used the term “prohibited” instead of “not prohibited” or “permitted” in this provision. This may have been a mere drafting error, but CMS will need to clarify whether it believes payments to sales personnel permitted under a AKS safe harbor are now prohibited by EKRA. If that is the case, then the exemption should apply to the business generated by W-2 sales personnel for all payors (public and private) under EKRA.
Prior enforcement actions illustrate that the federal government takes the position that sales personnel can be deemed to induce patient referrals in violation of the federal AKS; however, to our knowledge this position has not been fully litigated and we do not believe this is a strong position. Generally, sales personnel are in a position to solicit referrals and promote laboratory services but are not in a position to make a patient referral; exert undue influence on medical decision-making; or control an individual’s election of a laboratory service. This distinction should be relevant to a criminal or civil prosecution; especially in the context of laboratory services where coverage requires an order by a physician or other authorized person.
Notwithstanding the above, EKRA would appear to permit a payment arrangement with sales personnel similar to the type that meets the criteria of the Personal Services and Management Contract safe harbor under the AKS. That safe harbor permits payments to sales personnel if the compensation is fixed in advance and not determined by the volume or value of the FHCP business they generate, which means commission-based payments do not qualify since there would be a nexus between the compensation and volume or value of business they generate.
Finally, Congress does not address whether intent requires actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to commit a violation, which is the standard in most criminal laws. Multiple House bills proposing the addition of EKRA to the SUPPORT Act included intent language that did not ultimately make it into EKRA (“Neither actual knowledge of this section nor specific intent to commit a violation of this section shall be an element of an offense under this section.”). CMS will need to provide clarity.
 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(1)
 42 C.F.R. §§ 1001952(i)
 54 Fed.Reg. 3088, 3093 (1989)
 42 C.F.R. §§ 1001952(d)
 See 64 Fed.Reg. 36360; OIG Advisory Opinion No. 98-10.