{"id":626,"date":"2015-08-20T11:27:17","date_gmt":"2015-08-20T15:27:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/?p=626"},"modified":"2015-08-20T11:27:17","modified_gmt":"2015-08-20T15:27:17","slug":"first-court-decision-defining-identified-overpayments-under-the-medicaremedicaid-60-day-report-and-return-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/?p=626","title":{"rendered":"First Court Decision Defining &#8220;Identified&#8221; Overpayments Under The Medicare\/Medicaid 60-Day Report And Return Rule"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>(By &#8211;\u00a0Donna A. O&#8217;Connor, via\u00a0www.mondaq.com)<\/p>\n<p>The United States District Court\u2019s decision in <em>Kane v Healthfirst<\/em>, 11 Civ. 2325 (ER) (August 3, 2015) is a reminder to the health care community that the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) strengthened the False Claims Act and provided the government with powerful tools to seek recovery. The Court acknowledged the \u201cstringent\u201d and \u201cpotentially unworkable\u201d nature of the report and return rule, but nonetheless determined that Congress intended to place the onus on providers to quickly investigate, report, and return overpayments within 60 days. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dykema.com\/resources-alerts-first-court-decision-defining-identified-overpayments-under-the-medicare-medicaid-60-day-report-and-return-rule_08-13-2015.html?utm_source=Mondaq&amp;utm_medium=syndication&amp;utm_campaign=View-Original\" target=\"_blank\">Read more&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Notice<\/strong>: The \u201c<strong>Read more<\/strong>\u2026\u201d link provided above connects readers to the full content of the posted article. The URL (internet address) for this link is valid on the posted date; socialsecurityreport.org cannot guarantee the duration of the link\u2019s validity. Also, the opinions expressed in these postings are the viewpoints of the original source and are not explicitly endorsed by AMAC, Inc.; the AMAC Foundation, Inc.; or medicarereport.org.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>(By &#8211;\u00a0Donna A. O&#8217;Connor, via\u00a0www.mondaq.com) The United States District Court\u2019s decision in Kane v Healthfirst, 11 Civ. 2325 (ER) (August<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-626","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-medicare-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/626","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=626"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/626\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":627,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/626\/revisions\/627"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=626"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=626"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=626"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}