Waiving Copays and Deductibles: Beneficiary Inducement and Kickback Risk

Waiving a Medicare or Medicaid patient's copayment or deductible as a matter of routine office policy can violate federal law, even when the motive is goodwill. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute criminalizes offering anything of value to induce referrals or purchases reimbursable under a federal health care program, and a separate civil penalty law targets remuneration offered directly to a beneficiary that is likely to influence which provider that beneficiary chooses. HHS's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has treated routine copayment and deductible waivers as suspect remuneration since a 1991 special fraud alert, and Medicare contractors can flag the same pattern. A blanket waiver policy can expose a physician practice to civil penalties, program exclusion, or a kickback investigation.

Why Routine Waivers Draw Scrutiny

The Anti-Kickback Statute, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b), makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully offer, pay, solicit, or receive anything of value to induce referrals or purchases reimbursable under Medicare or Medicaid. OIG's Special Fraud Alert on the routine waiver of Medicare Part B copayments and deductibles, first issued in May 1991 and republished in the Federal Register in December 1994, explains the mechanism: a provider paid on the basis of a reasonable charge misstates that charge when it is routinely reduced to zero for the patient's share, and the forgiven amount can function as an inducement to keep that patient coming back. Unlike the Stark Law, which governs physician self-referral to entities with a financial relationship, the Anti-Kickback Statute reaches any inducement tied to a federal program claim. The same remuneration concept underlies EKRA Explained: Kickback Rules for Labs and Treatment Centers, which reaches referral payments outside Medicare and Medicaid.

The Narrow Financial Hardship Exception

Both statutes carve out the same narrow exception. Under 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a(i)(6)(A), a waiver of coinsurance or a deductible is not prohibited remuneration if the waiver is not advertised or solicited, the provider does not routinely waive the amount, and the provider determines in good faith that the patient is in financial need, or has made reasonable collection efforts and failed. OIG frames the exception as occasional, reserved for a particular patient's financial needs, not a standing office policy. A financial-hardship form every patient signs, without any individualized review of actual finances, fails the exception's good-faith requirement; OIG's alert lists that exact practice as a sign of improper waiver.

How Payers and Contractors Detect the Pattern

A routine waiver does not have to appear in a written office policy to draw scrutiny. OIG's alert names several marketing practices it treats as indicators, including advertisements promising no out-of-pocket expense for Medicare beneficiaries, blanket discount offers, and financial-hardship forms that record no review of a patient's finances. A practice that advertises free or discounted care to Medicare patients, or waives a copayment for every patient from one referral source, matches the pattern OIG's alert was written to flag.

OIG's 1991 fraud alert on routine copayment waivers is explicit: the hardship exception must not be used routinely; it should be used occasionally to address the special financial needs of a particular patient.

Consequences for Providers

Exposure runs on two tracks that can apply to the same waiver pattern. The Anti-Kickback Statute carries criminal liability, and a conviction or OIG finding under either statute can support permissive exclusion from Medicare and state health care programs under 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(b). The beneficiary inducement provision, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a(a)(5), carries civil monetary penalties assessed administratively, not criminally. A provider excluded after a kickback finding becomes an excluded individual other practices must screen for and remove; see Employing an Excluded Individual: Repayment and Self-Disclosure for what an employer does once that screening turns up a match.

Health Law Alliance has represented 2,500+ clients nationwide.

Why Early Legal Counsel Is Critical

It is critical that physician practices promptly retain experienced healthcare defense counsel upon receiving an inquiry about a copayment or deductible waiver practice, a civil investigative demand, a grand jury subpoena, or any other government inquiry. Early legal intervention can protect the practice's rights, can help ensure appropriate responses to government requests, can help avoid inadvertent admissions, and can allow counsel to communicate with investigators on the practice's behalf. Delaying representation can affect a matter's outcome and can expose the practice to unnecessary risk.

How Health Law Alliance Can Help

Health Law Alliance defends physicians and other providers facing federal healthcare fraud investigations, including Anti-Kickback Statute and beneficiary inducement inquiries. If a payer, Medicare contractor, or OIG has questioned how your practice handles patient cost-sharing, contact Health Law Alliance's healthcare fraud defense team for a free, confidential consultation before you respond.