Here are four takeaways from an April 12 JDSupra report discussing a recent court case that defined whether or not an action can be considered remuneration under the Anti-Kickback Statute:
- "Remuneration" can be understood as anything with value when discussing the Anti-Kickback Statute, but this definition was challenged by the 6th Circuit in United States ex rel. Martin v. Hathaway et al, in which a physician alleged that a hospital's refusal to hire her in exchange for referrals from a physician group violated the Anti-Kickback Statute.
- The 6th Circuit found the term "remuneration" is limited to "payments and other transfer of value," as opposed to "any act that may be valuable to another."
- Through this definition of the term, the act of not hiring a physician is not remuneration.
- The court also found that False Claims Act liability "resulting from" an Anti-Kickback Statute violation requires demonstrating but-for causation.