Dykema Gossett PLLC

Homeostasis: Health Care Law Blog

Posts by Andrew T. VanEgmond


Photo of Homeostasis: Health Care Law Blog Andrew T. VanEgmond
View Bio

Showing 3 posts by Andrew T. VanEgmond.

A Longer Statute of Limitations for False Claims Act Qui Tam Suits?

A Supreme Court case to be decided this term will determine whether to extend the statute of limitations for private relators’ FCA actions in which the government does not intervene. United States ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 6778, at *1 (Nov. 16, 2018). The Department of Justice wants relators to have the same 10 year statute of limitations as the government has in cases where the government does intervene. Read More ›

OIG Puts SNF Involuntary Discharges and Transfers Under the Microscope

Increased federal oversight may be on the horizon for skilled nursing facility involuntary transfers and discharges. The Office of Inspector General (OIG)  included in  its 2019 Work Plan reviewing SNFs’ involuntary transfers and discharges, focusing on reviewing whether State agencies have effectively investigated and enforced proper transfer and discharge procedures. Now is the time for SNFs to review their involuntary transfer and discharge procedures to make sure they are in compliance with CMS regulations. Read More ›

Covenant FN 40: A Silver Lining for Health Care Providers?

The Covenant Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., decision last year posed new problems for health care providers seeking to litigate no-fault benefit payment disputes against insurance companies. The Michigan Supreme Court held that providers could no longer bring direct causes of action against no-fault insurance companies for payment denials or underpayments because the no-fault statute does not mention any such cause of action. However, Footnote 40 of the Court’s opinion offered another option: the health care provider can enforce an assignment of past or present—not future—benefits from the patient. If the patient signs an assignment of benefits form at the time of each service, the health care provider can bring an action against the no-fault insurer on behalf of the patient. It remained unclear though how Michigan courts would interpret this footnote and whether the courts would impose additional restrictions on providers’ use of assignments to litigate payment disputes with no-fault insurers. Recent case law clarifies how providers may use Footnote 40. Read More ›