Recently, in United States ex rel. Hart v. McKesson Corp., the Second Circuit clarified the standard for acting “willfully” under the federal anti-kickback statute (AKS).
False Claims Act relator Adam Hart alleged that the defendant violated the AKS by providing business management tools to its customers, without charge, to induce those customers to purchase drugs from them. The tools helped providers to maximize profits and mitigate the risk that reimbursement rates would fall below the cost of the drugs to them. One tool, the Margin Analyzer, compared profit margins for drugs considered to be interchangeable, and the second, the Regimen Profiler, provided margin information for an entire course of treatment as opposed to specific drugs. The unlawful kickback, according to relator, was that the defendant did not offer these tools on a stand-alone basis, but only offered them to providers who agreed to use the defendant as their primary wholesaler of branded and generic drugs. The defendant allegedly provided the tools as a kickback to induce drug sales.
The Second Circuit first addressed the proper understanding of “willfulness” under the AKS. The Court held that, in order to violate the federal AKS, a defendant must act knowing that the conduct is in some way unlawful but does not have to know specifically that the conduct violates the AKS. The Court stated that this interpretation accords with the general goal of criminal law to punish only those who act with a “vicious will.” Notably, in 2010, Congress amended the AKS to provide that a violation does not require actual knowledge of the AKS or a specific intent to violate the AKS. Also, particularly with respect to the analysis of applications of AKS safe harbors to conduct, this interpretation also avoids unfairly sweeping innocent conduct under the reach of the criminal statute.Continue Reading Second Circuit Defines “Willfulness” Standard Under Anti-Kickback Statute
Since the advent of the Medicaid managed care program there has been a lingering question as to when a Medicaid dollar stopped being a Medicaid dollar.
The New York State Department of Health (DOH), in consultation with the Department of Labor (DOL), recently announced a Request for Applications for the 
Health care fraud prosecutions in the Second Circuit and throughout the country have typically sought forfeiture money judgments against all defendants for the proceeds of the fraud obtained by all members of a health care fraud conspiracy. The Supreme Court recently curtailed these efforts in 
The Supreme Court held last week that in a federal health care fraud prosecution, the Sixth Amendment prevents the government from obtaining a pretrial freeze of assets that were untainted by the alleged crime and that defendant sought to use to pay her lawyer.
Leslie Caldwell, DOJ Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, 