On May 9, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a policy related to resolutions of criminal and civil corporate enforcement. The new “Policy on Coordination of Corporate Resolution Penalties” was issued by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and instructs prosecutors to “consider the totality of fines, penalties, and/or forfeiture imposed by all [DOJ] components as well as other law enforcement agencies and regulators in an effort to achieve an equitable result.” While the policy appears to largely codify existing practice and contains few specifics, the new policy will likely encourage coordination between DOJ and other law enforcement agencies, both in the United States and abroad, when resolving both civil and criminal corporate enforcement actions against a company being investigated by multiple authorities for the same misconduct.
Foley & Lardner LLP’s (“Foley”) Bipartisan Public Policy Team is pleased to share our “Public Policy Weekly Health Care Newsletter” in which we compile the latest health care policy news and legislation.
*Please note that we publish this newsletter only when Congress is in session.
Foley & Lardner LLP’s (“Foley”) Bipartisan Public Policy Team is pleased to share our second “Public Policy Weekly* Health Care Newsletter” in which we compile the latest health care policy news and legislation.
Please note that we publish this newsletter only when Congress is in session.
The following article was originally published in May 2018 Compliance Today and is reprinted with permission.
For years, misconduct in scientific research was policed primarily by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.1 After a lengthy and confidential review, an institution suspected of producing false or fraudulent research was either cleared of the charges or required to issue retractions and pay back any federal grants that had been tainted by misconduct.
Two recent cases illustrate the continuing challenges providers, and in particular hospital providers, face when seeking to collect their charges when dealing with “out-of-network” patients.
First Example – A Claim for Services Under an ERISA Plan
In the first, a not for publication decision of the 9th Circuit, Eden Surgical Center v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp., et al. [Case No. 16-56422 (9th Cir., April 26, 2018)], the Ninth Circuit in rather abrupt fashion addressed a claim for services arising under an ERISA plan. Eden, styled as a “VIP style” outpatient surgery center (the ASC), sought to collect on a claim against an employer-sponsored plan by taking an assignment in the face of an anti-assignment clause.