Radiology quick cash? Kickbacks, compliance, and consequences.

The Anti-Kickback Statute was passed by Congress in the 1970s to reduce the overuse of government-reimbursed medical services. It attempts to eliminate fraud, abuse, and waste of medical services by outlawing the incentive of personal gain when referring patients for government-funded services. Although safe harbors were written into the law to maintain transactions beneficial to society, they require strict adherence. Anti-Kickback Statute violations are subject to the whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act, and violations can yield significant civil and criminal penalties.

The urgent need for contingency management among Tribal communities in the United States: Considerations for implementation, policy, and sovereignty.

In two randomized controlled trials, culturally adapted contingency management (i.e., incentives provided for substance-negative urine samples) was associated with reduced alcohol and drug use among geographically diverse American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults. In response to interest in contingency management from other Tribal and AI/AN communities, our research team in collaboration with AI/AN behavioral health experts, translated the research into practice with new AI/AN community partners. Tenets of community-based participatory research were applied to develop, pilot, and refine contingency management training and implementation tools, and identify implementation challenges. In partnership with the AI/AN communities, four members of the university team developed tools and identified implementation and policy strategies to increase the successful uptake of contingency management in each location. Through our collaborative work, we identified policy barriers including inadequate federal funding of contingency management incentives and a need for further clarity regarding federal anti-kickback regulations. Adoption of contingency management is feasible and can strengthen Tribal communities' capacity to deliver evidence-based substance use disorder treatments to AI/AN people. Unfortunately, non-evidence-based limits to the use of federal funding for contingency management incentives discriminate against AI/AN communities. We recommend specific federal policy reforms, as well as other practical solutions for Tribal communities interested in contingency management.

False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute: Avoiding Legal Landmines.

Health care entities doing business with the federal government may run afoul of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute not only when they directly submit fraudulent claims for government reimbursement but also when they create schemes that manipulate others into submitting (whether knowingly or unknowingly) illegal claims. In recent years, the Department of Justice is deploying these statutes to ensure that electronic health records are built and maintained with appropriate cybersecurity protections.

Industry Payments to Physicians Are Kickbacks. How Should Stakeholders Respond?

Payments from the pharmaceutical industry to US physicians are common. In determining which payments rise to the level of an illegal kickback under the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General (OIG) has stated in nonbinding guidance that influencing or "swaying" physician prescribing is key. OIG has highlighted as a compliance standard the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Code on Interactions with Health Professions, which stipulates that permissible payments are those that do not interfere with prescribing. However, recent evidence has shown that most payments influence physician prescribing, driving higher prescription drug costs by increasing use of brand-name and low-value drugs. This evidence implies that many payments that are currently commonplace could be subject to prosecution under AKS. Given that these payments increase costs to patients and the health care system, there is a public interest in curtailing them. This article proposes a range of actions available to stakeholders-including industry, providers, regulators, and payers-to mitigate the cost-increasing effect of industry payments to physicians.