Blog

The Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) remains one of the most complex and heavily enforced healthcare laws. As enforcement intensifies, healthcare organizations must move beyond reactive compliance and embed AKS risk management into everyday operations.

Executives, investors, operators, and compliance officers share responsibility for maintaining compliance. By taking proactive, practical steps, stakeholders can protect enterprise value, reduce exposure, and demonstrate to regulators that compliance is a core part of the business model—not an afterthought.

Every healthcare organization has unique risk points based on its structure, service lines, and financial relationships. A strong compliance

The Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) is broad enough to capture almost any financial arrangement in healthcare. While safe harbors protect certain transactions, other business models routinely attract regulatory scrutiny. These high-risk arrangements share a common theme - they create financial incentives that can influence referrals, physician decision-making, or utilization of federally reimbursed services.

Executives, investors, operators, and compliance officers need to know where these risks lie. By identifying the most common red flags, stakeholders can structure deals more carefully, strengthen compliance programs, and avoid costly enforcement actions.

Marketing plays an important role in expanding patient acc

Healthcare transactions often involve two of the most significant federal fraud and abuse laws: the physician self-referral law, commonly known as the Stark Law, and the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”). Both regulate financial relationships in healthcare, both carry serious penalties for violations, and both frequently arise in the same deals. But they operate differently, and confusing them can leave organizations exposed.

Executives, investors, operators, and compliance officers need to understand the distinctions between these statutes, how they interact, and why compliance with one does not guarantee compliance with the other.

The Stark Law prohibits physicians from referring Medicare patients for certain designated

The Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) sets the rules of the road for financial relationships in healthcare. But enforcement priorities shift over time as new business models emerge, healthcare delivery evolves, and regulators sharpen their focus. For executives, investors, operators, and compliance officers, understanding current enforcement trends is just as important as knowing the statute itself.

In recent years, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) have expanded investigations, brought more cases, and coordinated with whistleblowers at record levels. These efforts signal where the government sees the greatest risk — and where healthcare stakeholders must exercise the most caut

The Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) casts a wide net over financial relationships in healthcare. Without limits, the statute could chill legitimate business arrangements that support patient care and innovation. To balance enforcement with practical business realities, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) has established a series of “safe harbors.” These regulatory provisions protect specific types of arrangements from AKS liability if stakeholders satisfy all requirements.

Understanding how safe harbors work, and where arrangements fall short, is essential for structuring deals with confidence.

Safe harbors provide clarity in an otherwise uncertain environment. When

The Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), is one of the most important healthcare laws in the United States, affecting stakeholders across the healthcare industry. Lawmakers designed the AKS to protect patients and federal healthcare programs from financial conflicts of interest, and they drafted it broadly to give regulators powerful enforcement authority.

With heightened U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) enforcement, increased whistleblower activity, and the rapid growth of telehealth, private equity-backed platforms, and value-based care models, understanding AKS risk is essential, whether you’re structuring an acquisition, negotiating c

Part of Our Ongoing Healthcare Transactions Series.

Healthcare transactions involving operations in Michigan require a close look at state-specific regulatory issues that go well beyond federal compliance. Michigan’s licensure, Medicaid, Certificate of Need (CON), and corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) rules can significantly influence deal structure, timing, and post-closing operations.

Understanding these regulatory triggers—and planning for them early—can help avoid costly delays, preserve reimbursement streams, and ensure a smooth transition of operations. This post outlines the key Michigan-specific issues to watch in any h

Part of our Healthcare Transactions Series

A well-structured deal can fall apart—or create serious financial exposure—if regulatory issues are overlooked. From hidden Medicare liabilities to illegal ownership structures, healthcare transactions carry unique regulatory risks that don’t exist in most other industries.

In this installment of our healthcare transactions series, we walk through seven critical regulatory issues buyers and sellers need to manage in any healthcare M&A deal. We’ll also share actionable tips for keeping your transaction compliant, efficient, and on track to close.

The Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) are two of the biggest landmines i

Management Services Organizations (MSOs) have become an essential tool for structuring healthcare businesses, particularly in states with strict corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) laws. By providing administrative and management services to healthcare providers, MSOs allow physicians and other healthcare professionals to focus on patient care while separately managing business operations.

However, MSO structures must be carefully designed to mitigate legal risks, including CPOM restrictions, fee-splitting prohibitions, and—when government healthcare programs are involved—compliance with the Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law. Below, we outline key legal considerations and best practices for structuring an MSO in compliance with federal and state regulations.

Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) must navigate an increasingly complex regulatory environment, and the latest changes from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are no exception. As part of its ongoing efforts to enhance transparency and oversight, CMS has updated Form CMS-855A, requiring SNFs to undergo an off-cycle revalidation by May 1, 2025.

Failure to comply with these new requirements could jeopardize Medicare billing privileges, disrupt cash flow, and force facilities into a costly reapplication process. Below, we break down what’s changing, how to stay compliant, and steps your facility should take now to avoid any billing suspensions.

Why the Change? Increased Scrutiny on SNF Ownership

CMS has intensified its focus on