- Which of the following is not true of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b))?
| a. | It prohibits the knowing and willful payment of “remuneration” to induce or reward patient referrals or the generation of business involving any item or service payable by the Federal health care programs. | |
| b. | Remuneration under the AKS includes anything of value and can take many forms besides cash, such as free rent, expensive hotel stays and meals, and excessive compensation for medical directorships or consultancies. | |
| c. | The statute only covers the payers of such remuneration. | |
| d. | Criminal penalties and administrative sanctions for violating the AKS include fines, jail terms, and exclusion from participation in the Federal health care programs. |
- Which of these actions could be prohibited by the AKS?
| a. | A hospital giving a physician a discount on a lease for office space in the hospital’s medical office building. | |
| b. | A drug manufacturer paying for physicians to play a round of golf at a luxury golf club if the physicians agree to listen to a lunchtime presentation (lunch and drinks provided) from the manufacturer’s drug sales representatives. | |
| c. | An OB-GYN practice advertising that it offers its patients who are Medicaid eligible a free “baby welcome gift” that includes diapers, wipes, toys, books, blankets, and a Babies R Us gift card (a total value of $150). | |
| d. | All of the above. |
- In United States v. Greber, the court found that, with regards to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute:
| a. | Because Congress added the word “remuneration” to the statute in 1977, only a kickback for which no service was rendered was a violation of the statute. | |
| b. | Because the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit took a narrow view of the meaning of the term “kickback,” the statute was not violated by a kickback for which only one purpose was inducement of referrals. | |
| c. | Because payments in this case were partially intended to compensate for the physicians’ professional services, the statute was not violated. | |
| d. | Because payments in this case were intended to compensate for the physicians’ professional services, but also intended to induce the physician to use Cardio-Med’s services, the statute was violated. |
- Which of the following is true about the Stark law (or Physician Self-Referral Law [42 U.S.C. § 1395nn])?
| a. | It prohibits physicians from referring patients, for any services, to any entities with which the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship. | |
| b. | It prohibits physicians receiving kickbacks for referring patients to another medical provider. | |
| c. | It prohibits physicians from referring patients to receive “designated health services” payable by Medicare or Medicaid from entities with which the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship, unless an exception applies. | |
| d. | It prohibits physicians from intentionally violating the law by referring patients to receive “designated health services” payable by Medicare or Medicaid from entities with which the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship, unless an exception applies. |
- Which of the following is not considered a designated health service (or “DHS”) under the Stark law?
| a. | Orthodontic and other dental services | |
| b. | Durable medical equipment and supplies | |
| c. | Outpatient speech-language pathology services | |
| d. | Home health services |
