South Dakota Federal District Court Allows Medical Device Kickback Suit to Proceed Against Surgeon

Back in October of 2019, the hospital entities of Sanford Health, Sanford Medical Center and the Sanford Clinic in Sioux Falls South Dakota agreed to pay $20.25 million to resolve False Claims Act (“FCA”) allegations. The settlement is one of the largest in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. Last week, the U.S. District Court for the District South Dakota found that the lawsuit filed against the neurosurgeon who worked for Sanford- which alleged that he violated the FCA by engaging in a kickback scheme to order medical devices used in surgeries from two companies he owned- could proceed.

This case is representative of a growing area of concern with respect to addressing possible fraudulent conduct in connection with the delivery of healthcare services vis-a-vi the Physician Owned Distributorship (POD). The Department of Health and Human Services defines a POD as any physician-owned entity that derives revenue from selling, or arranging for the sale of, implantable medical devices and includes physician-owned entities that purport to design or manufacture, typically under contractual arrangements, their own medical devices or instrumentation. This business arrangement in which physician investors form companies that purchase medical devices from third-party manufacturers and sell them to hospitals, often to the hospitals at which the POD physician-investor practices is exactly what happened with the defendants in this case.

Defendant Dr. Wilson Asfora is a neurosurgeon and the owner of Medical Designs LLC and Sicage, LLC. Dr. Asfora ordered and used devices manufactured and sold by Medical Designs and Sicage in the surgeries he performed at Sanford Medical center. As the owner of Medical Designs and Sicage, Dr. Asfora profited from the sales of these devices in violation of the False Claims Act. The claims allegedly were false because they were made in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and in connection with surgeries that were medically unnecessary. Thus the very essence of a POD can easily implicate the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits “knowingly and willfully soliciting or receiving any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate) directly or indirectly. . . in cash or in kind, in exchange for or inducing another to refer an individual to particular goods or services for which payment may be made in whole or in part under a federal health care program.”
Given the context of the global pandemic, it is imperative that health care professionals and medical device companies, that are critical to innovation and improving patient care, engage in transparent and ethical ways. The business relationship implicated between a hospital and a POD where a physician is the owner of the POD can corrupt the medical judgment of the physician, just as Dr. Asfora’s financial interest in the medical devices he implanted in patients corrupted his medical judgment. Moreover, because the anti-kickback statute assigns criminal liability to parties on both sides of an impermissible kickback transaction- hospitals, as well as ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) that enter into contracts with PODs also may face liability.

Hospitals and ASCs should note that the risk of fraud and abuse is particularly high in circumstances when such physicians-owners are one of the few users of the devices sold or manufactured by their PODs. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a policy statement announcing enforcement discretion over COVID-19 anti-kickback violations for certain circumstances involving other provider types but expressly indicated that they would not extend that enforcement posture policy towards medical devices. Thus, the federal government continues to aggressively pursue medical device companies for violating the anti-kickback statute during the COVID-19 epidemic.

VW Contributor: Skylar Young
© 2020 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

DHHS Office of Inspector General Signals Willingness to Sanction Individual Physicians Under the Anti-Kickback Statute

By Matthew J. Effken.  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) has released a new fraud alert that shows a willingness to impose financial sanctions directly on individual physicians under the Anti-Kickback Statute, and also encourages whistle-blowers to report physicians who participate in questionable compensation arrangements.

The fraud alert highlights the potential risks to physicians of entering into questionable medical directorships and staffing arrangements. The alert notes that the OIG has recently reached settlements with 12 individual physicians in cases involving compensation for medical directorships where the services either were not actually rendered or were compensated at greater than fair market value.

Some settlements also involved cases where physicians’ office staff salaries were paid for by affiliated health care entities, thereby relieving the physicians of a financial burden they otherwise would have incurred. In all cases, the payments were alleged to be remuneration to the physicians based on the volume or value of referrals.

The OIG appears to be signaling that they will not hesitate to impose financial penalties on individual physicians, not just larger corporate entities, when the agency finds a violation of the Anti-Kickback statute. The fraud alert also serves as a reminder that parties on both sides of a problematic transaction are subject to civil and criminal liability when the Anti-Kickback statute is violated.

In addition, the fraud alert reaffirms the rule that a compensation arrangement may violate the Anti-Kickback statute if just “one purpose” of the arrangement –not the only purpose or the main purpose–is to provide compensation for past or future referrals of Federal healthcare program business.

Finally, the fraud alert encourages potential whistle-blowers to report physicians who may be violating the Anti-Kickback Statute and includes both a web-link and toll-free hotline number to make such reporting easier.

The OIG Fraud Alert on physician compensation is available at the following link:

© 2015 Houghton Vandenack Williams

For more information, Contact Us

What is the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute?

The federal anti-kickback statute makes it a crime, punishable by going to jail and monetary penalties, for receiving a payment or kickback in exchange for referring someone for Medicare or Medicaid service. So, for example, if you start referring patients who are on Medicare to a physician, that physician can’t buy you meals, give you gift cards or write you a check in exchange for doing that. Often times this statute comes up as interplay between doctors and other doctors or hospital systems or therapists or other medical professionals but it really applies to everyone. There are a lot of exceptions and safe harbors to the anti-kickback statute that you need to read very carefully and make sure that you fully cover in your agreements and  your operations to avoid doing something that seems simple but could be a felony.

© 2014 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

For more information, contact us

Fraud Waste and Abuse Training Requirements Eliminated for Providers

A final rule published in the April 15, 2010 Federal Register makes clear that enrolling in Medicare is considered enough proof that providers know about fraud, waste and abuse issues, and that Medicare Advantage (“MA”) plans do not need to require additional compliance training.

In the 2007 MA regulations, CMS stated that it would hold MA plans and Part D sponsors responsible for fraud and abuse training of first-tier and downstream entities that participate in their plans. This would have included providers who contract with many health plans, which means providers would have had to establish many different training programs.

CMS appeared to back away from the requirement in a proposed regulation posted in October 2009.  This latest final rule, which takes effect June 7, 2010, puts the issue to rest.

CMS listened to providers’ complaints about the burden triggered by training requirements from different MA plans, which essentially amounted to CMS being a tad too extreme in its fraud-fighting efforts. CMS wanted to make sure that plans had good compliance programs and that their downstream contractors, such as providers, had them as well.  But pushing the responsibilities onto providers went a little too far.

To comply with all the idiosyncrasies of each plan’s compliance program would have been a logistical nightmare. Now, with the final rule, an unnecessary and basically impossible standard has been made reasonable and providers will not have to deal with the additional training requirements.

© 2010 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

  For more information, contact

Stricter Self-Referral Rules Under Stark May Bring an End to Some Physician-Hospital Contracts

Major changes to the federal anti-self-referral rules known as the Stark law take effect October 1, 2009.  These changes were approved over a year ago, and could potentially cause many physician-hospital arrangements to fall out of compliance if doctors are not prepared. Lack of knowledge of the Stark law revisions or the structure of a particular agreement will not excuse physicians from liability.

The changes to the Stark law make it much more difficult for physicians and other entities providing designated health services to enter into joint ventures around hospital services. Stark is a strict-liability statute, so even if physicians have innocent intentions, they are still subject to penalties for violating the statute.

The Stark law generally prohibits physicians from referring patients to entities in which they have a financial stake, although there are several exceptions to the rule. In August 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued a final rule making broad revisions to the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment system that will restrict:

  • So-called “under arrangements,” where hospitals contract with physician-owned entities to provide a broad range of ancillary services, such as clinical labs or imaging services.
  • Per-use or “per-click” payments for equipment and space leases.
  • Compensation deals based on a percentage of revenue generated by space or equipment use.

The changes were delayed one year from the original October 1, 2008, implementation date.

In order to comply with the changes to the Stark law, physicians will need to restructure contracts to narrow the scope of services they perform for a hospital.  For example, a physician-owned entity may need to limit its clinical services but still could conduct billing and management activities.

How Should Physicians Prepare for the Stark Changes?

Here are some steps physicians can take to ensure compliance with the rules taking effect October 1, 2009:

  • Consult an attorney to determine whether current hospital joint ventures or space and equipment leases will continue to be compliant with Stark.
  • Review contracts for clauses that allow parties to amend or dissolve agreements as a result of changes in the law. Be sure to include such clauses in future contracts.
  • Consider restructuring existing deals to limit the scope of services provided or to take advantage of other applicable safe harbors. In some instances, physicians may be forced to unwind the arrangements.
  • Make sure any changes to compensation reflect fair market value.
  • Review any state self-referral laws.
  • Make any changes to agreements in writing.

© 2009 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

  For more information, contact

How to Avoid Stark Issues When Choosing Service Providers

According to a new Department of Health and Human Services report, in 2005, those doctors who ordered the most magnetic resonance imaging (“MRI”) services for their patients were more prone to have a medical practice or other form of business relationship with the provider performing the service.  The analysis of physicians reimbursed by Medicare for MRI services determined that 25% of the payments went to physicians who had a connection to the performer of the service.  In fact, just 5% of those physicians (the most frequent users of MRI) accounted for 55% of the MRIs ordered.  The study also found that in 2005, Medicare paid for about 2.6 million MRI services under the Medicare physician fee schedule.  The report concludes, “As more services are performed in these settings, doctors are increasingly in a position to order services from parties with which they have a medical practice or other business relationship. In these circumstances, doctors may have conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.”[1]


As the DHHS study shows, doctors need to make sure to check for all conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, when ordering services from outside parties.  In light of the new phase of the Stark Law, Stark III, it is important for all doctors to assess their relationships with current and potential service providers to ensure that they comply with the Stark Law and any other applicable rules.  By covering all of your bases, you will be able to obtain the services you need for your practice and develop longstanding business relationships with trusted providers, while at the same time feel confident that no conflicts exist.


 © 2008 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

For more information, contact

CMS Modifies Stark, Again: Implications Abound for Physicians

            The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) recently released updates of its third phase of final regulations to the federal physician self-referral law (the “Stark Law”).  The third phase of final regulations is appropriately titled “Stark III.”  Stark III clarifies, and in some cases substantially revises, various concepts, definitions, and exceptions to the Stark Law.  As a result, hospitals, group practices, physicians and other health care providers may need to review and modify certain existing contractual relationships to ensure compliance with a Stark Law exception.

The Stark Law bans Medicare payments to entities providing designated health services (“DHS”) if patients were referred by physicians who have a financial relationship with the entity (unless an exception applies).  Phase III finalizes the 2004 interim final rule known as Phase II of Stark II.  Some of the important changes in the Stark final rule, published in the Sept. 5, 2007 Federal Register, include:

·         Closing what CMS views as a loophole involving indirect compensation;

·         Relaxing the physician recruitment exception;

·         Eliminating the fair-market-value compensation “safe harbor”;

·         Expanding the scope of the FMV exception; and

·         Making holiday events less stressful Stark-wise. 

Although Phase III relaxes the Stark Law in certain respects, it gets stricter in other areas, making it essential for health care providers to be aware of the changes that affect their business practice.  For instance, CMS made major changes to the indirect compensation exception that will likely have a significant effect on many existing compensation arrangements structured to comply with previous CMS interpretations of that exception. 

Health care providers cannot look at Stark III as an isolated ruling because it stems from a long line of regulations and many years of development.  Instead, Stark III must be interpreted in conjunction with the provisions of Stark I and Stark II, which in some areas could prove to be a rather tedious task.  Effective compliance is attainable when those persons interpreting the Stark Law and its various phases are familiar with the history of the law, its relevant changes, and have experience with interpreting and applying legal provisions.  As a health care provider, you need to determine how Stark III affects you.


(1) The physician recruitment exception has substantial revisions; now reasonable practice restrictions can be imposed on the recruited physicians, including covenants not to compete.

(2) Personal service arrangements now have a six-month “holdover” period.

(3) The $329 non-monetary compensation exception now acknowledges continued compliance even if gifts and benefits exceeding the limit are exceeded by no more than 50%, so long as the physician repays the excess.

(4) Hospitals can sponsor one formal event (i.e., Christmas party) for members of their medical staff per year without having to track expenses under the $329 non-monetary compensation exception.

(5) The fair-market-value “safe-harbor” definition has been eliminated.[1]

   CMS Opens Some Doors, Closes Others in its Third Regulatory Go-Round on the Stark Physician Self-Referral Law, Health Business Daily, September 14, 2007.

   © 2008 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

For more information, contact

The Stark Law and Federal Anti-Kickback Laws: What You Need to Know

The Stark Act is an amendment to the Social Security Act prohibiting physicians from engaging in a “self referral” when referring patients elsewhere for certain services. Stark prohibits physicians from referring their patients to other entities for designated health services (“DHS”) payable by Medicare when the physician or an immediate family member of the physician has a direct or indirect financial relationship with the entity.  These referrals are commonly known as “self-referrals.” 

 In addition to the prohibition on the referral itself, the Stark Act prohibits the entity from billing Medicare or any individual, third party, or other entity for the services provided as a result of the self referral.  The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, (“CMS”), has enacted lengthy regulations designed to illuminate the boundaries of the Stark act.  There several exceptions to the general rule disallowing self-referrals, providing physicians and DHS entities with some flexibility.  As in other areas of health care law, however, the regulatory scheme governing self-referrals is complex and lengthy, with costly consequences for non-compliance.  For that reason, physicians and DHS-providing entities should carefully plan their relationships with one another and not hesitate to contact our offices for assistance in determining compliance with the Stark act.


 Before addressing some of the exceptions, it is important to define the key terms of the general rule.  The fundamental way to avoid the application of the general rule is to distinguish oneself from the definition of critical terms.  First and foremost, it should be noted that the Stark Act only prohibits referrals to entities for a DHS.  Designated health services include:

 1.) clinical laboratory services;

 2.) physical therapy services;

 3.) occupation therapy services;

 4.) radiology services (including MRIs, Ultrasounds, and CAT scans);

 5.) radiation therapy and supplies;

 6.) durable medical equipment and supplies;

 7.) parenteral and enteral nutrients, equipment, and supplies;

 8.) prosthetics, orthotics, and prosthetic devices and supplies;

 9.) home health services;

 10.) outpatient prescription drugs; and

 11.) inpatient and outpatient hospital services.

 If that seems like pretty much everything, it is.

 Who is part of my immediate family?

 Physicians must take note that the direct or indirect financial relationships of an “immediate family member” will be imputed to them for the purpose of determining whether a referral was a prohibited one.  “Immediate family member” is defined as a “husband or wife; birth or adoptive parent, child, or sibling; stepparent, stepchild, stepbrother, or stepsister; father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, or sister-in-law; grandparent or grandchild; and spouse of a grandparent or grandchild.”  Once again, the regulations use a broad definition that should give physicians and health care providers pause.

 What counts as a financial relationship?

 The most critical definition for physicians wishing to comply with Stark entails understanding what constitutes a “direct or indirect financial relationship.”  In general, a “financial relationship” is a direct or indirect ownership interest, investment interest, or compensation arrangement with any entity that furnishes DHS.  What constitutes a direct financial relationship is fairly straightforward, with one twist: A direct relationship exists if the investment interest or the compensation passes between either the referring physician or a member of his or her immediate family and the entity furnishing the designated health service without any intervening persons or entities.  Thus, even if a physician has no contact with a DHS-providing entity, he or she may still have a direct financial relationship with the entity through an immediate family member.  In contrast to a direct relationship, what constitutes an indirect relationship is more complex, and requires analysis in the context of the three different types of “financial relationships.”

   What is an Ownership or Investment Interest?  What counts as an Indirect Ownership or Investment Interest?   

 An ownership or investment interest in a DHS entity can take the form of equity, debt, stock, certain stock options, partnership interests, memberships interests in an LLC, etc.  An ownership or investment interest “includes an interest in an entity that holds an ownership or investment interest” in the DHS entity.  Thus, an ownership interest in a subsidiary company is not an ownership interest in the parent or another subsidiary of the parent unless the subsidiary has an interest in the parent or another subsidiary of the parent.  An interest in a retirement plan is specifically excluded from the definition of ownership or investment interest.  The following, while specifically excluded from the definition of ownership or investment interest, are nonetheless considered a form of “compensation arrangement”: 

 1.) stock options or convertible securities until executed;

 2.) an “under arrangement” contract between a hospital and a physician-owned entity;

 3.) a security interest held by a physician in equipment sold to a hospital and financed through a loan from the physician; and

 4.) an unsecured loan subordinated to a credit facility.

 An indirect ownership or investment interest exists if there is “an unbroken chain” of persons having an ownership or investment interest and the entity providing DHS has actual knowledge or acts in “reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance” that the referring physician has an indirect ownership interest in the entity, no matter how many “intermediary” interests exist.  In fact, an indirect ownership or investment interest exists even though the entity providing DHS does not know the “precise composition of the unbroken chain.”  Referring physicians and DHS entities must therefore be careful to check that no “unbroken chain” establishes an indirect ownership or investment interest.   As noted above, the DHS entity will be denied payment despite its lack of knowledge if, depending on the circumstances, CMS determines that the entity has acted with reckless disregard or ignorance of the referring physician’s investment and ownership interests along the chain.  A DHS entity therefore should make certain it knows exactly whom they are dealing with before accepting a referral.

 What is a Compensation Arrangement?  What counts as an Indirect Compensation Arrangement?

 If you thought the definition of an ownership or investment interest was complex, it gets worse.  Of the types of financial relationships prohibited by the Stark law, compensation arrangements are the most onerous to grasp.  A compensation arrangement is “any arrangement involving remuneration, direct or indirect, between a physician (or a member of a physician’s immediate family) and an entity,” including “under arrangement” contracts.

In addition to the twist involving members of the physician’s immediate family noted above, a physician is deemed to have a direct compensation arrangement with a DHS entity if “the only intervening entity between the physician and the entity furnishing DHS is his or her physician organization.   In such situations, for purposes of this section, the physician is deemed to stand in the shoes of the physician organization.”

 The regulations entail a long definition of an indirect compensation arrangement.  First, an indirect compensation, like an indirect investment or ownership interest, requires an “unbroken chain” of persons or entities having a financial interest between the referring physician and the DHS entity.  However, unlike the indirect investment or ownership interest, an indirect compensation arrangement can exist if the intervening interest is either an investment or ownership interest or a compensation arrangement.  Second, the referring physician must receive compensation from a person or entity in the chain with which the physician has a direct financial relationship that varies with the volume or value of referrals generated by the physician for the DHS entity.  Finally, just as in the context of an indirect ownership or investment interest, the DHS entity must have “actual knowledge of, or act in reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of” the referring physician’s compensation varying with the volume or value of referrals.  For the purposes of determining whether an unbroken chain exists, the physician will “stand in the shoes” of his or her physician organization.

 Concerned your Financial Relationships Might Implicate the Stark Act?

 You should be.  Violation of the Act will result in a denial of payment by Medicare to the DHS and could result in a civil penalty of up to $100,000 for the DHS entity, referring physician, or both.  A physician or other entity wishing to determine compliance with the Stark act has several options.  The physician or entity can contact our offices with their questions and receive guidance based on their situation.  Further, a physician or entity can request an “advisory opinion” from CMS regarding whether their referral arrangement violates the Act and regulations promulgated under it.  It should be noted that advisory opinions are binding on both the requesting party and CMS.  This can be a useful tool because it will give assurance to the physician or DHS-providing entity.  Although both options entail costs, those costs are dwarfed by the potential costs associated with the CMS determining a referral to be “prohibited.” 

 What is the Anti-Kickback Law and How is it Different from Stark?

 Although similar in purpose, the statute colloquially known as the “Anti-Kickback” law imposes even more severe penalties on entities violating its provisions.  The Anti-Kickback law makes it a felony for anyone who receives a form of payment in return for referring a patient to another for Medicare or Medicaid-covered services. The law also forbids payment in return for purchasing, leasing, or ordering any good, facility, service or item which would be paid for under either Medicare or Medicaid.  Violating the act comes with a heavy penalty – a felony conviction punishable by a fine up to $25,000 and/or five years in jail.  Both sides of the transaction are forbidden – the law forbids both the receipt of and the offering to pay or payment of the kick-back.

 Recently, Physician-Vendor relationships have come under heightened scrutiny by federal and state regulators.  It is important for physicians and their vendors to carefully structure their relationships to avoid potentially violating the Anti-Kickback law.

 “Safe Harbor” Transactions

 Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) have provided several “safe harbors” allowing entities to avoid violations of the Anti-Kickback law.  Many of the excepts are made to exclude certain arrangements or transfers from the definition of payment, thus shielding the parties from potential criminal liability under the Anti-Kickback law.  The safe harbors include:

 1 )     Investment Interests:

 Three types of payments are exempted under the safe harbor for “investment interests.”  To fit in the first exemption, the entity must have less than $50 million in assets related to the furnishing of health care items and services. With active and passive investors, there are restrictions on the respective ownership interests that may be held by those capable of making referrals or furnishing Medicare or Medicaid covered health services.  These restrictions are relaxed somewhat if the entity is located in an “underserved area.” The exemption for investment interests allows that, in certain circumstances, dividends or interest are deemed not to be payments as far as the Anti-Kickback law is concerned.  However, the regulations impose very precise and lengthy conditions on compliance with the exemption.  Entities wishing to use this exemption should consult with their attorney to ensure full compliance with the investment interest safe harbor.

 2.)      Space Rental:

 Remember that the Anti-Kickback law forbids certain leasing arrangements.  Recognizing that this could put a strain on health care providers attempting to find a place to set up shop, HHS provided a safe harbor for space rental.  This safe harbor requires the lease to be in writing, cover all the premises leased between the parties and specify those premises, be for at least one year, be for fair market value rent, which is set in advance, and not lease more space than is “reasonably necessary” to provide the desired service.  The rent can in no way reflect the volume or value of referrals between the parties for Medicare or Medicaid covered services.

 3.)     Equipment Rental:

 What good is an empty office?  Modern health care requires some very complicated and very expense equipment.  Many health care providers find it more economical to rent rather than own their equipment.  In a corollary to the safe harbor for space rental, HHS has provided a safe harbor for equipment rental. The same conditions as applied to the space rental lease apply to the equipment lease.

 4.)      Personal Services / Management Contracts:

 A safe harbor exists for payment made to agents (persons authorized to act for another) as compensation, so long as the agency agreement is set out in writing and covers all the services the agent will provide, be for not less than one year, be for an amount equal to the fair market value for such services, be for an amount set out in advance, and in no way take into account the volume or value of any referrals or business generated payable by Medicare or Medicaid.

 5.)      Referral Services:

 Payment can even be made to a referral service under a safe harbor promulgated by HHS.  The payment, as you’ve probably guessed, cannot be based on the volume or value of referrals, but only on the costs of operating the referral service.  There can be no restrictions on the manner in which the services referred are provided.  Further, the referral service must make certain disclosures to the person seeking the referral and maintain a written record certifying those disclosures.

 6.)      Payments made to Bona Fide Employees:

 Payments to an employee will be safe so long as there is a “bona fide” (real) employment relationship and the payments do not take into account the value or volume of referrals for Medicare or Medicaid covered services.

 7.)      Recruitment:

 Just as there were relaxations under STARK for physician recruitment, there exists a safe harbor under the Anti-Kickback regulations for payments made to induce a practitioner to join with an entity.  There is a litany of conditions that must be met for this safe harbor to be met.  For example, if the recruit is leaving an established practice, the revenues at the recruiting entity must generate 75% of its revenue from new patients; that is, the recruit can only bring 25% worth of patients with him from his old practice.  Further, there can be no condition that the recruit make referrals, influence referrals, or otherwise generate business for the new entity as a condition of receiving the benefits of his or her new employ. 

 This article is designed only as an introduction to the STARK and Anti-Kickback laws.  The exceptions outlined above are presented in a simplified manner and it should be stressed that health care providers should consult with their attorneys to ensure full compliance with any and all regulations under STARK or the Anti-Kickback laws.

 © 2008 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

For more information, contact

Group Practice DHS Revenue Allocation under the Stark Law

The latest phase of the Stark Law, known as Stark III, does not alter the basic premise that a group practice can pay a physician a share of overall profits or a productivity bonus provided that such share or bonus is not based on the volume or value of Designated Health Services (DHS) referrals by the physician.


Under Stark III, allocation of DHS revenue is deemed not to be based on the volume or value of DHS referrals, i.e. is permissible, only on certain limited bases, including per capita (i.e., in equal shares), or in accordance with production if DHS revenues are less than 5% of the group’s total revenue and less than 5% of each physician’s total compensation.   Special rules apply for productivity bonuses.


It is also vital to note that Stark III retains the requirement that allocation be done according to a methodology set down in advance.  Compensation methodology can always be changed prospectively, but not retroactively under Stark.


   © 2008 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

For more information, contact