Category Archives: Whistleblower Articles

A federal whistleblower lawsuit filed against Erlanger Health System accuses hospital leaders of illegal billing practices by knowingly overlapping surgeries and allowing trainees to operate on patients without physician supervision, among other patient safety and compliance issues.

The complaint, brought under the federal False Claims Act and Tennessee Medicaid False Claims Act and filed in April 2021 in U.S. District Court, alleges surgeons who practice at Erlanger violated state and federal law by regularly billing for two or three different surgeries in the same timeframe while leaving residents and interns alone to complete operations without proper oversight or patient consent.

Medicare and Tennessee’s Medicaid program, TennCare, require a supervising or teaching physician to be present for the “key and critical” portions of each surgery in order to bill for the procedure and receive payment.

As a teaching hospital, Erlanger is supposed to use young doctors in training, known as residents, during surgeries. It’s up to the teaching physicians to decide what aspects of the surgery are key and critical because it can vary significantly depending on the individual patient, procedure or the skills of the resident.

“The surgeries were often scheduled to start within fifteen to thirty minutes of one another and, in the case of three overlapping bookings, two or more surgeries frequently occurred entirely within the duration of a third,” the suit alleges. “This routine practice meant unwitting patients were subjected to longer-than-necessary operating-room times and charges, often under anesthesia, often in the care of trainees, and nearly always without the backup of a properly qualified surgeon, despite legal requirements.”

The plaintiffs — Erlanger’s former chief information officer, Dr. Stephen Adams, and orthopedic surgeons Dr. Julie Adams and Dr. Scott Steinmann — say in the suit that they raised those concerns about patient safety and compliance with Erlanger leadership, which ultimately cost them their jobs.

“Erlanger deliberately turned a blind eye to the problems, deciding, instead, to focus negative attention upon those who dared to raise such issues,” the suit alleges.

The three are also seeking payment for damages they claim came as part of a “malicious and unlawful campaign of retaliation” under former Erlanger CEO Dr. Will Jackson, according to the suit.

The False Claims Act is a longstanding statute that allows individuals with non-public information to bring a suit in the name of the government to allege false statements or fraudulent representations have been used to secure government payment.

The law offers financial incentives for those suits as a way to safeguard public funds spent on critical services, such as health care, military support, infrastructure and disaster relief.

If successful, the whistleblower — also known as the relator — typically receives a portion of the recovery ranging between 15% and 30%, according to the U.S. Department of Justice website.

By law, those suits must be filed under seal to afford the government an opportunity to investigate the allegations and decide whether to take the case forward — which occurs in about 20% of cases filed. If the government declines to intervene, the whistleblowers have the option to proceed themselves.

Erlanger spokesperson Blaine Kelley said in an emailed statement that the state of Tennessee has already declined to intervene in the case. Erlanger officials are still awaiting confirmation of the U.S. Attorney’s office’s decision, she said.

“Erlanger has worked with and otherwise fully cooperated with the government’s review of the claims as they relate to Erlanger over the past 18 months,” Kelley wrote. “Erlanger disputes the merit of the allegations.”

She added, “No instances of patient harm relating to these allegations have been identified.”

Reuben Guttman, an attorney representing the whistleblowers, said his clients are unable to discuss the case.

“The three renowned physicians and professors of medicine have alleged issues of significant public importance, and they look forward to a full airing of their concerns in court,” Guttman said by email. “They hope that whatever comes out of this litigation will ultimately lead to better medical care for the vulnerable and the voiceless.”

Dr. Stephen Adams is board-certified in both family medicine and medical informatics and is a professor in the department of family medicine at Erlanger’s academic affiliate, the University of Tennessee College of Medicine Chattanooga, where he has worked since 1997, according to the suit.

Dr. Julie Adams and her husband, Steinmann, are leaders in their field and were recruited in 2019 to join the college of medicine faculty and Erlanger. At the time, Steinmann was appointed chairman of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery. He is now an emeritus professor of orthopedics at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine.

In fiscal year 2022, whistleblowers filed 652 False Claims Act suits, with health care fraud representing the most common type of cases, according to the Department of Justice.

In February 2022, Massachusetts General Hospital — the renowned teaching hospital affiliated with Harvard — agreed to pay $14.6 million to settle a federal lawsuit alleging it fraudulently billed government insurers by overlapping surgeries as supervising surgeons worked in other operating rooms, according to a report in the Boston Globe. Just last month, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh Physicians and one of the group’s leading surgeons agreed to pay $8.5 million to the United States to resolve claims over improper billing for concurrent surgeries.

Source: By Elizabeth Fite, Chattanooga Times Free Press.
Contact Elizabeth Fite at efite@timesfreepress.com or 423-757-6673.

Article available on-line at https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2023/mar/27/whistleblowers-accuse-erlanger-illegal-billing-tfp/

By Reuben Guttman and Liza Vertinsky, July 25, 2022

In the 1990s, state Attorneys General learned how to leverage their resources when they retained private counsel to sue the tobacco industry. The private attorneys worked on contingency, meaning they did not get paid unless money was recovered from the tobacco industry. For their part, the states were able to take on novel litigation and draw from private investments in legal innovation without putting taxpayer dollars at risk.

Since the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement was signed in 1998, state Attorneys General have worked with private counsel in similar relationships to bring an array of health, safety, and environmental suits focused on health impacts. These suits have included cases against drug companies, the most notorious of which featured opioid manufacturers and distributors.

In July 2022, 52 states and territories, along with many local governments, entered into a $26 billion multijurisdictional agreement with three major pharmaceutical distributors and a pharmaceutical manufacturer to settle claims arising from their opioid business practices. This multistate opioid settlement followed earlier ones reached with the now-infamous Purdue Pharma, as well as with McKinsey Consulting, Mallinckrodt, and Insys Therapeutics, and was followed by settlements with two more opioid manufacturers. The result was a multi-state enforcement effort by Attorneys General that is the second largest in U.S. history, exceeded only by the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.

While the state Attorneys General who participated in these suits and settlements were quick to herald them as a major success, with more than $30 billion in settlement funds and future monitoring and restricting future opioid deliveries, it is a stretch to say these are industry-changing events. Too little was done to educate policymakers and the public about the nature and sources of industry misconduct and to address the remaining vulnerabilities in the pharmaceutical manufacturing and distribution system. The results did too little to change the market ecosystem that fueled the epidemic.

The opioid litigation, like many cases brought against pharmaceutical and device companies, challenged marketing practices that have caused products to be used in ways that place profits ahead of patients, often putting patients at risk of harm. These lawsuits exposed practices that have resulted in professional standards of care that seem to be influenced more by Wall Street promises than by medical necessity.

Yet far too often, these cases are resolved short of full fact finding — called discovery — or without a public trial and a published court decision. Multi-million-dollar opioid settlement resolutions are touted in press releases as major successes while the culprit corporations admit to nothing, simultaneously telling investors that the settlement was a business decision and will not affect the long-term bottom line. Indeed, history shows that when drug companies pay hundreds of millions of dollars — or even billions of dollars — to resolve claims of drug marketing derelictions, their price per share is not affected, or may even get a boost because investors believe the settlement was a cheap fee for a license to break the law.

As much as these cases have provided an inkling of the profit-motivated misconduct of companies that Americans depend on for health care and a safe environment, knowledge of the depth of corporate misconduct remains just that, an inkling. Confidentiality agreements — often executed to prevent delays in producing the documents required for civil litigation — keep the most sordid details secret. And when there is no trial, the public gets to learn little about identifying wrongful conduct and legislators have difficulty making laws that prevent it.

Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis famously wrote that sunshine is the best disinfectant. While recovering money for public programs is essential, state Attorneys General must do a better job of also making public the lessons learned from these opioid settlements. If the drug industry is using subtle marketing tactics to manipulate the prescribing habits of physicians, for example, the public — including legislators, regulators, the press, and even physicians — must know the details.

Impact litigation must be designed to effect changes in industry behavior. Just as the National Transportation Safety Board investigates and issues a public report when a train wreck occurs, and just as Environmental Impact Statements are required for federal projects that could significantly affect the quality of the human environment, state Attorneys General should treat corporate health and safety derelictions as deserving of detailed public reports. And they should make it clear to the attorneys involved — whether in-house or under contingency agreement — that confidentiality agreements cloaking the secrecy of wrongdoing are to be used only sparingly, to protect legitimate trade secrets that are not essential to reforming industry practices, and not to hide information that is important to the public.

In the end, the public needs to know all the facts and policymakers need to act on the facts. A simple press release announcing a seemingly high-dollar settlement doesn’t achieve either of those objectives.

__________________________

Reuben Guttman, a partner with Washington, D.C.-based Guttman, Buschner & Brooks, has litigated under the False Claims Act to challenge pharmaceutical marketing practices. Liza Vertinsky is a professor of law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. Their article “Public-Private Litigation for Health” was published in the Utah Law Review.

Source: Article available on-line at Statnews.com.