What Can Providers Give to Patients, Pt 3

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Oct 30, 2025 | Legal

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

What Can Providers Give to Patients

Part 1 & 2 Recap

As Part 1 of this series indicates, there are two applicable federal statutes: the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (CMPL). Part 1 also makes it clear that there are a number of exceptions. If providers meet the requirements of applicable safe harbors or exceptions, they can give patients and potential patients free items and services that would otherwise violate applicable requirements.

Part 2 describes an exception for items and services of nominal value with a retail value of no more than $15 per item or $75 in the aggregate per patient on an annual basis that may be given by providers to beneficiaries. Providers may not, however, give cash or cash equivalents.

Exceptions to the Rule

The OIG also says that providers may give free items and services to patients with demonstrated financial need. The exception based on financial need does not include cash or cash equivalents. Cash equivalents include checks, gift certificates, and gift cards.

The CMPL says that the following requirements must be met to qualify for this exception:

- - The items or services are not offered as part of any advertisement or solicitation.
  - The offer to give items or services is not tied to the provision of other items or services reimbursed in whole or in part by the Medicare or Medicaid Programs.
  - There is a reasonable connection between the items or services and the medical care of the patient.
  - Providers give items or services after a determination has been made in good faith that patients are in financial need.

The AKS does not include a similar safe harbor or exception, but the OIG has stated that the AKS does not prohibit discounts to uninsured patients who are unable to pay for items and services.

Good faith determinations that patients are in financial need are key. Determinations should be based on policies and procedures that providers consistently apply to make these decisions. Policies and procedures should include requirements to document financial need. Such policies and procedures are often referred to as policies on “charity care.”

Determining Need

Providers have discretion to take a variety of factors into account to determine financial need. Such factors may include:

- - - Patients’ income, assets and expenses
    - Amounts due for services and items provided

Accuracy Matters

Needless to say, providers should avoid inflated income guidelines that result in free items or services given to beneficiaries who are not really in financial need.

Providers may ask patients to provide documentation of their financial status. Decisions about financial need may also be based on other reasonable methods, such as documented interviews with patients and questionnaires.

Policies and procedures that govern free items and services given to patients should also require periodic review of patients’ financial status, since it may change over time. Providers should recheck patients’ needs at reasonable intervals to help ensure that their financial status has not changed significantly.

Final Thoughts

The key to using this exception is undoubtedly consistent application of a policy and procedure to make determinations about financial need. Now is the time to review or develop and implement policies that cover free items and services given to patients.

This is part 3 of a 5-part series. Come back next week for part 4.

# # #

Elizabeth Hogue is an attorney in private practice with extensive experience in health care. She represents clients across the U.S., including professional associations, managed care providers, hospitals, long-term care facilities, home health agencies, durable medical equipment companies, and hospices.

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

What Can Providers Give to Patients, Pt 2

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Oct 17, 2025 | Admin, Clinical, Legal

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Provider Kickbacks

Exceptions

Providers, including marketers, are tempted to give patients and potential patients free items and services. While providers usually have good intentions, they must comply with applicable requirements. As Part 1 of this series indicates, there are two applicable federal statutes: the anti-kickback statute and the civil monetary penalties law. Part 1 also makes it clear that there are a number of exceptions or “safe harbors. If providers can meet the requirements of an applicable safe harbor or exception, they can give patients and potential patients free items and services that would otherwise violate applicable requirements.

Limit Increase

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the primary enforcer of fraud and abuse prohibitions, announced that; effective on December 7, 2016; the limits on free items and services given to beneficiaries increased. Specifically, according to the OIG, items and services of nominal value may be given to patients or potential patients that have a retail value of no more than $15 per item or $75 in the aggregate per patient on an annual basis. The previous limits were $10 per item or $50 in the aggregate per patient on an annual basis.

Undue Influence

Under section 1128A(a)(5) of the Social Security Act, persons who offer or transfer to Medicare and/or Medicaid beneficiaries any remuneration that they know or should know is likely to influence beneficiaries’ selection of particular providers or suppliers of items or services payable by the Medicare or Medicaid Programs may be liable for thousands of dollars in civil money penalties for each wrongful act. “Remuneration” includes waivers of copayments and deductibles, and transfers of items or services for free or for other than fair market value.

In the Conference Committee report that accompanied the enactment of these requirements, Congress expressed a clear intent to permit inexpensive gifts of nominal value given by providers to beneficiaries. In 2000, the OIG initially interpreted “inexpensive” or “nominal value” to mean a retail value of no more than $10 per item or $50 in the aggregate per patient an annual basis.

Needed Items, not Cash

The OIG also expressed a willingness to periodically review these limits and adjust them based on inflation. Consequently, effective on December 7, 2016, the OIG increased the limits of items and services of nominal value that may be given by providers and suppliers to beneficiaries to a retail value of no more than $15 per item or $75 in the aggregate per patient on an annual basis.

Providers may not, however, give cash or cash equivalents.

These amounts may still seem paltry to many providers. According to the OIG, providers who see that patients need items worth more than these limits should establish relationships with charitable organizations that can provide items and/or services that are not subject to these limits. In other words, work together to meet the needs of patients!

Final Thoughts

With time and the emotional context inherent in home health and hospice, clinicians may want to offer gifts to their clients. Low reimbursement rates and workforce shortage may cause HHAs to consider gifts and incentives as a way to keep clients and get referrals to new ones. If you find yourself in this situation, make sure you’re staying under the legal threshold, and engage 3rd parties to fill larger needs.

This is part 2 of a 4-part series. Come back next week for the third installment.

# # #

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

Monthly Stipends Not Allowed

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Jun 20, 2025 | Admin, Legal

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Medical Directors:

Monthly Stipends Not Allowed

Monthly stipends to Medical Directors for referrals of patients could cost you. Earlier this month, a hospice provider in Georgia settled claims of violation of the federal Anti-Kickback statute (AKS) and the federal False Claims Act (FCA) by agreeing to pay $9.2 million. The allegations include payments of kickbacks, including monthly stipends, to Medical Directors in exchange for referrals of patients. These practices resulted in three whistleblower lawsuits against the hospice by former employees. They will receive $1.5 million.

Marketing, not Monthly Stipends

In the meanwhile, marketing strategies utilized by post-acute providers are generating fierce competition for referrals, especially Medicare beneficiaries who need home health services! As a result, providers are appropriately committing more and more resources to marketing activities. Providers are, for example, entering into agreements with referring physicians to provide consulting services to their organizations. These legitimate relationships may easily be misunderstood by enforcers.

Consulting Physicians

First, it is important to acknowledge that providers of services in patients’ residences need consulting physicians’ services. Examples of services that are genuinely needed, from a business perspective, may include the following:

Consultation regarding clinically complex cases
Assistance with the development and maintenance of specialty programs
Communication with physicians who provide inappropriate orders for care, do not return signed orders on time, or are unresponsive to staff members who are seeking modifications to treatment plans

As providers know, however, these types of arrangements raise important legal issues related to potential violations of the AKS, the federal so-called Stark laws, the FCA, and state statutes that are probably similar to these federal statutes.

Avoid Trouble with Specific Contracts

Providers are likely to avoid violations if they meet the requirements of the personal services “safe harbor” under the AKS and the contractual exception under the Stark laws. The safe harbor and exception generally require providers to pay consulting physicians who also make referrals to them based upon written agreements that require payments at fair market value for services actually rendered without regard to the volume or value of referrals received.

Practically, Providers Should:

Pay physicians who also make referrals
- on an hourly basis
- not a set monthly amount of stipends
Develop standardized agreements and use them consistently with all referring physicians who receive consulting fees
- Providers cannot afford to use a variety of different agreements that may not meet applicable requirements
- Staff must understand that they can use only the standard approved agreement and cannot modify it without advance written approval from a designated, knowledgeable individual
Document services rendered and the amount of time spent on these activities.
- Documentation is crucial
- Providers should develop and implement policies and procedures that permit payments to physicians only after appropriate documentation to support payments has been received and reviewed
Avoid agreements for consulting services with physicians whose services they do not actually use
- even if they make no payments to them
- terminate these agreements if they do not need the services covered by them or it may appear that the only purpose for the agreements is to induce referrals as opposed to a documented need for services
Avoid having numerous consulting physicians/medical directors
- Although there are usually no limits on the number of consulting physicians/medical directors that providers can have at any given time, a very large number is likely to invite scrutiny by regulators and should be avoided
- How many is too many? The number should certainly bear some relationship to the size of the provider organization and the geographic area served.
- Beyond this general guideline, common sense must prevail. The bottom line is: does the provider have legitimate work for every consulting physician?
Avoid asking consulting physicians to perform commercially reasonable services that are related to the volume and value of referrals made
- Providers cannot, for example, ask referring physicians to assist with quality assurance activities that
  - Entail their review of charts of patients whom they referred to the provider
  - Ensure the more referrals made, the more money consulting physicians make

Final Thoughts

Providers are more likely to avoid enforcement activities when they follow these practical guidelines. Violations hurt providers and referral sources alike. In view of the possible adverse consequences, expenditures of financial and other resources are certainly justified to get it right.

# # #

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

Medicare Advantage Predatory Marketing

by Kristin Rowan | Aug 16, 2024 | CMS, Editorial, Marketing, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Leading Associations Attempt to Curb Medicare Advantage Marketing Practices that Prey on the Unsuspecting

For some time now, we’ve been reporting on the marketing practices that Medicare Advantage uses to lure new members. And, it’s working, as more than 50% of eligible patients are now on Medicare Advantage plans. From federal lawsuits to fraud, to upcoding, Medicare Advantage has made headlines more often than almost any other topic in the industry in the last few years. A joint move last week by two national associations may bring the issue to a head once and for all.

The National PACE Association (NPA) and LeadingAge wrote to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) urging them to employ stricter oversight on Medicare Advantage marketing practices. The letter, dated July 25, 2024, cited the impact of these marketing tactics on adults served by Programs for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE). They called the marketing “aggressive and misleading” and called upon CMS to protect PACE beneficiaries from harm.

One of the selling points in the marketing of Medicare Advantage is the supplemental benefits. Medicare Advantage plans are allocated nearly $64 billion dollars to pay for dental, vision, gym memberships, and other benefits that are not available with traditional Medicare. However, the government has no idea where this money is going, who is using it, and what it’s for. Limited available data suggests that a very low number of Medicare Advantage enrollees are using these supplemental benefits. The rest of the money just sits with the payers at taxpayer expense.

The false promise of cash benefits draw even more of this population away from traditional Medicare and into Medicare Advantage plans. Cash benefits from MA plans are only available to dual eligible members. What they don’t tell you, though, is that if you are dual eligible and you switch from Medicare to Medicare Advantage, you are subject to prior authorization rules, care denials, and smaller networks, meaning you may lose your physician when you switch plans. Some of those cash benefits are restricted to use in particular stores. For example, Aetna restricts the use of cash benefits to stores owned by CVS Health. If there isn’t a CVS Health near you, the cash benefits can’t be used.

PACE Programs

Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) are typically traditional Medicare and Medicaid joint programs that provide medical and social services in home and community-based care settings. The programs cover prescriptions, dental care, emergency services, home care, meals services, primary care providers, nurses, social workers, and more. The program’s goal is to keep patients at home or in their communities and get the health care they need. There is no out-of-pocket costs to these programs for dual eligible members. Medicare only members have a monthly premium and prescription drug (Part D) premium. There are no additional deductibles or copayments for any service or level of care.

Bait and Switch

The marketing messages from Medicare Advantage are pulling PACE eligible members into dual MA and Medicaid plans, which significantly reduce the level of care, access to care, and continuity of care. The MA/Medicaid programs also have higher out-of-pocket costs to members, despite having no monthly premium. Research shows that Medicare Advantage is targeting healthier individuals who will use the provided benefits less often and that when Medicare Advantage patients become sicker, they switch back to traditional Medicare plans if they can.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

PACE LeadingAge MA Reform The financial and health implications of uninformed disenrollment from PACE to conventional MA plans are significant. The needs of PACE beneficiaries, most of whom have multiple complex medical conditions, cognitive or functional impairments – or all three – are not comprehensively addressed by MA plans. The loss of PACE services is harmful and, in some cases, can be life-threatening.

Katie Smith Sloan

president and CEO, LeadingAge

Dire Need for Change

In their letter to CMS, NPA and LeadingAge called for the following changes to be made:

Require MA plans to explain, clearly and without embellishment, all out-of-pocket costs and network/coverage limitations. using easy to understand terms
When a member disenrolls from a PACE program, additional steps should be taken to ensure the disenrollment is voluntary and that the member is fully informed of the differences in coverage before leaving the PACE program.
Increased leniency in re-enrolling in PACE programs after leaving a Medicare Advantage program by allowing re-enrollment mid-month.
Require MA brokers, when providing comparative benefit information of their current coverage (e.g., PACE) to an alternate MA plan, to also inform them, in plain language, if the new plan does not cover or coordinate their Medicaid benefits; and any benefits the individual would “lose” under the new plan (e.g., transportation to groceries).

Pace LeadingAge MA Reform We share CMS’ stated desire that people have access to accurate and complete information when they make health care choices. We have numerous examples of vulnerable seniors being induced to enroll in MA plans without being fully-informed of what they are giving up when they enroll.

Shawn Bloom

president and CEO, National PACE Association

The Rowan Report reached out to LeadingAge to see if CMS has responded to their letter.

Updates will be provided when we have them.

# # #

Kristin Rowan has been working at Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report since 2008. She has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in event planning, sales, and marketing strategy. She has recently taken on the role of Editor of The Rowan Report and will add her voice to current Home Care topics as well as marketing tips for home care agencies. Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

Sources:

https://prospect.org/health/2024-05-30-medicare-advantage-64-billion-supplemental-benefits/

https://leadingage.org/associations-urge-tougher-enforcement-of-anti-predatory-medicare-advantage-marketing-practices/