CJ Jouhal
LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook | About.Me

An Entrepreneur that leverages technology to grow and enhance a business. A Technologist that understands business and entrpreneurship and makes technology facilitate the business model.

These are my ramblings about business, technology, startups and whatever else.

Lincare Non Compete Agreement

In addition to the alleged ACF violations, Relator also claimed that Lincare violated anti-kickback status. This legislation was created to ensure that there are no financial conflicts of interest in the federal health care system. The law itself aims to prevent the misuse of public funds by excluding Medicare claims, which are the result of appeals, payments, and other compensation paid by providers to recipients of federal health programs. By law, all contracts between CMS and a Medicare Advantage HMO or PPO contain a clear agreement on compliance with all federal laws and regulations, including, but not only, the False Claims Act and anti-kickback status. In addition, Relator claimed that a medical device provider that regularly waives or reduces Medicaid recipients` supplements, without demonstrating financial difficulties in influencing the recipient`s purchasing decisions, violates anti-kickback status. In 2011, Apria Healthcare, one of Lincare`s leading competitors in oxygen equipment and services, became Humana`s exclusive supplier of sustainable medical equipment. Humana is a health insurance company that runs various state-funded Medicare Advantage health insurance plans. The contract allowed Apria to supply various durable medical equipment at prices that represented 60 percent of the cost of Lincare`s same services. Relator claimed that lincare, to compete with Apria, partially paid the extras it charged home oxygen customers that were covered by The Medicare Advantage plans run by Humana. Relator, however, claimed that Lincare continued to be reimbursed higher than Apria – the government was subsidizing 70 $US for each piece of equipment worth 100 $US instead of 48 $US below the rate negotiated with Apria.

Relator asserted that the reduction of premiums intended to maintain market share and avoid customer losses at Apria was considered a violation of the False Claims Act. He therefore asserted that any payment submitted to the government for reimbursement after the date on which they reduced their supplement was considered a false allegation. The Procedural Tribunal granted Lincare`s motions for summary judgment and/or summary judgment on the other grounds of the amended fourth remedy.   The Tribunal`s provisional decision to grant the applications is as follows: “This court has previously found that there is no explicit contract . . .

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

cjjouhal’s twitter