Fair Market Value and the OIG

September 28th, 2009 | Income Approach & Methods | Market Approach | Medicare | Regulatory Matters

There was some discussion of this topic at the Healthcare Conference to be sure. Here is a quote from Advisory Opinion 09-09, footnote 5:

"Our conclusion might be different if the valuation of the respective contributions of the investors included intangible assets. For example, given the circumstances of the Proposed Arrangement, we might be concerned if the valuation were based on a cash flow analysis of the Surgeon ASC as a going concern. Because the Surgeon Investors are referral sources for the Surgeon ASC, a cash flow-based valuation of that business potentially would include the value of the Surgeon Investors’ referrals over the time that their ASC was in existence prior to the merger with the Hospital ASC. The result might be that the Surgeon Investors would receive a greater return on their capital investment than the Hospital, which could reflect the value of their referrals to the Surgeon ASC. (In these circumstances, the Hospital ASC, being newly developed at the time of the proposed merger, may have little or no cash flow record, but we might be similarly concerned with a valuation based on a cash flow analysis of a hospital-owned ASC for which the hospital could influence referrals.) We do not assert that a cash flow-based valuation or other valuation involving intangible assets would necessarily result in a violation of the anti-kickback statute; the existence of a violation depends upon all the facts and circumstances of a particular case."

This comment harkens back to the Thornton letters (1992/1993) http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/docs/safeharborregulations/acquisition110293.htm

and Advisory Opinion 07-05

the latter of which caused considerable consternation.    At issue is that the OIG appears to define "capital invested" as cash and tangible assets rather than the term used in "fair market value" (market value of invested capital) which includes intangible assets. As the quote indicates, intangible assets may be problematic from a AKS standpoint, given all the facts and circumstances.

Thanks to my colleague Tim Smith for elucidating my thinking on this.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

2 Responses

  • Seems we may be in for a train wreck when these issues collide with the FASB…
    I’d love to hear your thoughts on the implications of FAS 164 (Not-for-Profit Entities: Mergers and Acquisitions—Including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 142) for healthcare M&A, purchase price allocations, etc.

  • I confess that some of us have been working on this FASB collision (well-stated, BTW) for a while but have yet to complete it. This may prompt me to make it my next writing project what I have some free time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *