Hiring a consultant to review billing practices is sound compliance work. However, leaving identified problems unresolved creates a different kind of risk.
A recent District of South Carolina decision illustrates the point. Deciding a motion to dismiss, the court considered allegations that two consulting firms had reviewed the hospital’s anesthesia billing, identified problems, and recommended corrective action—but the hospital did not implement their recommendations. Although the court was required at that stage to accept the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true, it concluded that the allegations about the reports did not establish individual liability for the officials who received them. The reports nevertheless helped support an inference that the hospital knew of the alleged billing problems.
The lesson is practical. A consultant’s report does not end the compliance inquiry. It may provide evidence of what the organization knew, prompt a documented investigation, and, depending on what the investigation establishes, may implicate the federal 60-day repayment rule.
Why the Reports Did Not Establish Individual Liability
The relator alleged that two hospital officials received the consultants’ findings but failed to correct the billing problems.
The court dismissed the claims against the individual defendants because the complaint did not connect them to the alleged false claims. Specifically, the court observed that the relator did not allege that the officials prepared a claim, signed an attestation, created a false record, or directed anyone else to do so. Their alleged receipt of the reports, followed by inaction, amounted to what the court called “mere passive acquiescence.” The reports may have supported an inference that the officials knew of a potential problem, but the complaint still needed facts connecting them to the submission of a false claim or the creation of a false supporting record.
The distinction is important. Knowledge and participation are different elements. The reports did not protect the officials. The absence of allegations connecting them to the claims did.
Why the Same Reports Supported Institutional Knowledge
The analysis changed at the institutional level. The False Claims Act’s (FCA) knowledge standard includes actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, and reckless disregard. To plead that element against the hospital, the relator needed plausible facts suggesting that the organization understood the alleged billing risk and continued submitting claims anyway.
At the pleading stage, the consultant reports helped supply that corroboration. In sustaining certain allegations against the hospital, the court emphasized that the relator alleged that two independent firms had raised concerns consistent with her account. Reviews intended to reduce compliance risk therefore helped support an inference that the hospital had been warned about the alleged billing problems.
That does not mean organizations should avoid outside reviews. It means that commissioning a review is only the first step. Organizations should carefully assess the findings and determine what further investigation or corrective action, if any, is warranted. They should also document the basis for their conclusions and any action taken in response.
The 60-Day Rule Creates a Separate Repayment Risk
The relator also asserted a reverse false claim. Unlike an ordinary FCA claim, which concerns money improperly paid by the government, a reverse false claim concerns money the defendant was obligated to return but knowingly retained. The court dismissed that theory because the complaint did not identify a repayment obligation distinct from the original allegedly false billing.
The federal 60-day repayment rule provides a separate statutory framework for reporting and returning identified overpayments. A provider that identifies a Medicare or Medicaid overpayment must report and return it within the statutory deadline. For Medicare Parts A and B, a person has identified an overpayment when the person “knowingly receives or retains” it, using the FCA definition of “knowingly.” Accordingly, a consultant’s findings should be evaluated not only for their significance to ongoing billing practices, but also for whether they bear on the provider’s obligations under the applicable overpayment rules.
The rule also gives providers time to determine whether an identified overpayment reflects a broader problem. When a provider has identified an overpayment but has not yet completed a good-faith investigation into related overpayments arising from the same or a similar cause and the provider timely conducts that investigation, the repayment deadline is suspended until the investigation concludes and the aggregate amount is calculated, or until 180 days elapse, whichever occurs first.
The sequence matters. The 180 days is time to investigate related overpayments after an overpayment has already been identified. The suspension is not permission to delay. It applies when the provider timely conducts a good-faith investigation to determine whether related overpayments exist.
An investigation may also reveal conduct that warrants self-disclosure. The appropriate route depends on the issue. Potential fraud or conduct within the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) civil monetary penalty authority may be suitable for OIG’s Self-Disclosure Protocol, while actual or potential Stark Law violations may be appropriate for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid’s Voluntary Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol. Ordinary billing errors may instead require repayment through the regular Medicare process. A disclosure can suspend the repayment deadline after the relevant agency acknowledges receipt, but providers should evaluate the scope and consequences of each pathway before proceeding.
Takeaways and Practical Advice
- Treat receipt of a report as a dated compliance event. Record when the report arrived, who received it, the issues it identified, and the steps taken in response.
- Triage the findings immediately. Determine whether the report identifies a known overpayment, points to a potential overpayment requiring investigation, or raises a broader fraud-and-abuse concern.
- Involve counsel from the outset. Counsel can assess privilege, disclosure obligations, and investigative structure, while defining the scope of the investigation, assigning responsibilities, and preserving relevant records.
- Close the loop on the recommendations. If the organization adopts a recommendation, document implementation. If it rejects one, record the factual and legal basis and any alternative control.
- Review older reports now. An unresolved audit or consultant finding may warrant renewed review to determine whether the underlying issue was appropriately resolved.
- Do not overread the individual dismissals. The court dismissed the claims against the individual defendants because the complaint did not connect them to a false claim or record. The dismissals were without prejudice, and the court permitted the relator to amend. Different allegations, or a separate repayment duty, could produce a different result.
AlstonHealth State Law Hub
Alston & Bird’s Health Care team highlights state legislation and regulatory actions with direct implications for operations, reimbursement, privacy, and enforcement risk. Designed for in-house counsel, the tracker supports legal teams in proactively managing risk and aligning business strategy with a rapidly evolving state regulatory environment.
Learn more on the AlstonHealth State Law Hub.
If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please contact one of the attorneys on our Health Care team.
You can subscribe to future advisories and other Alston & Bird publications by completing our publications subscription form.