The Halifax $85 Million Lesson: Compensation Arrangements Between Hospitals and Physicians Must Be Reviewed

by Benesch

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced another multi-million dollar settlement of alleged False Claims Act violations on March 11, 2014. Specifically, Halifax Hospital Medical Center and Halifax Staffing, Inc. agreed to settle various issues with the DOJ for $85 million in order to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by submitting claims to Medicare that violated the federal prohibition on physician self-referrals, 42 USC §1395nn (the “Stark Law”). United States ex rel. Baklid-Kunz v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, et al., No. 09-cv-1002 (M.D. Fla.).

The Stark Law and the Bona Fide Employment Exception

The Stark Law prohibits a physician from referring a patient for certain designated health services (“DHS”) to an entity in which the physician, or an immediate family member, has a financial interest, such as an ownership or investment interest in the entity or a compensation arrangement with the entity. Certain exceptions for arrangements are permitted under Stark. However, because the Stark Law is a strict liability statute, the arrangement must fit completely within the criteria of the exception in order not to violate the statute. At issue in Halifax, as explained below, is the bona fide employment exception, which provides that if the exception is satisfied than any amount paid by an employer to a physician is not considered a “financial relationship” under the Stark Law. This generally requires an employment arrangement to meet the following elements: (1) the employment is for identifiable services; (2) the compensation must be consistent with fair market value; (3) the compensation must not take into account volume or value of referrals, except payment in the form of a productivity bonus based on services performed personally by the physician is permitted; and (4) the arrangement must be commercially reasonable.

Alleged Violations

The relator in the Halifax case, Elin Baklid-Kunz, filed a qui tam action in 2009. Ms. Baklid-Kunz was a member of the hospital’s compliance office prior to filing the lawsuit and currently serves as the Director of Physician Services. Among other issues, the lawsuit alleged that Halifax’s arrangements with six medical oncologists and three neurosurgeons violated the Stark Law, and therefore, that Medicare claims submitted by Halifax based on referrals from these physicians violated the FCA.

Specifically, the six oncologists were employed by Halifax Staffing and worked for Halifax Hospital medical Center. Their contracts involved incentive bonus payments, which included participation in a bonus pool equal to 15% of the operating margin of the hospital-based medical oncology program at Halifax. The bonus pool was split among the physicians in proportion to their personally performed services. However, the bonus pool also included revenue for hospital outpatient services referred by the physicians, and thereby arguably took into account the volume or value of the physicians’ referrals and failed to meet the bona fide employment exception to the Stark Law.

With respect to the neurosurgeons, the suit alleged the employment agreement was structured in a way to allow the neurosurgeons to operate their practice, receive a guaranteed salary and keep 100% of their collections without any overhead expenses. Halifax argued that this package represented fair market value, but the government introduced an expert stating that the surgeons were consistently paid twice what neurosurgeons in the 90th percentile are paid ($881,000), despite the fact that their collections were well below the 90th percentile.

Notably, Halifax failed to consult legal counsel prior to implementing these compensation arrangements. Halifax only sought a legal analysis from outside counsel after the arrangements had been in place for several years.

Summary Judgment Decision

On November 13, 2013, the district court ruled that the oncologists’ incentive bonus was not based on services personally performed by the oncologists as required by the bona fide employment exception because the percentage of the operating margin formula varied with the volume or value of oncologist referrals and consequently ruled that Halifax Hospital violated the Stark Law. Halifax ultimately conceded that the revenue included fees for hospital services, such as outpatient prescription drugs and other services not personally performed by the oncologists. Since the size of the pool and the size of the bonuses available to each oncologist would increase as the referrals to the hospital increased, the money available in the bonus pool varied with the volume and value of the referrals by the oncologists. The court did not rule whether the neurosurgeon compensation package violated the Stark Law, but instead ordered that a jury should decide this issue and scheduled a trial date for March 3, 2014 (which never took place due to the eventual settlement).


On the eve of trial to set the amount of damages available for the Stark Law violations, the parties agreed to settle the claims for $85 million. The relator will receive $20.8 million.

Pursuant to the settlement, Halifax agreed to enter into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (“CIA”) with the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). The CIA provides that Halifax must implement procedures to internally review and monitor its arrangements with physicians and other referral sources, as well as engage an independent review organization to perform reviews and report to the OIG. Halifax has admitted only to violating the Stark law and claims it settled because it had “a fiduciary responsibility to avoid the risks associated with trial and the potential of a lengthy appeals process.” It is reported that Halifax has spent $21 million on its defense of this case.

The relators’ claims that Halifax unnecessarily admitted Medicare patients to the hospital in order to obtain higher reimbursements, performed unnecessary spinal surgeries, and conducted fraudulent billing practices has remained unresolved and is scheduled to go to trial in July 2014. The government has declined to pursue these claims which could total around $240 million in damages and penalties.

As the silver lining, if Halifax pays the full $240 million for these remaining allegations, which would result in total payments of $325 million, that is still far lower than the initial $1.1 billion the government has asked for to settle the allegations in their entirety.

Ultimately, this case reflects the grave importance of carefully reviewing all physician compensation arrangements and exercising due diligence in documenting fair market value and commercial reasonableness. Moreover, when Stark Law violations are discovered, self-disclosures under the Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol (“SRDP”) or directly to the DOJ should be seriously considered.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Benesch | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Benesch on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.