Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

OIG Issues Advisory Opinion Approving Supermarket Pharmacy Loyalty Program

By Brett Barnett, Timothy Fry & David Pivnick on January 12, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On December 17, 2019, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued an Advisory Opinion regarding a proposed supermarket loyalty program that would have provided customers with rewards points on out-of-pocket costs related to the purchase of pharmacy products. OIG determined that while the proposal would implicate the Federal anti-kickback statute (AKS) and the prohibition on beneficiary inducements under the civil monetary penalties (CMP) law, the arrangement would satisfy the CMP law’s exception for retailer rewards and pose minimal risk under the AKS.

The requester operates over 200 grocery stories, approximately half of which operate in-store, full-service pharmacies. The stores operate a loyalty program under which customers may earn points for every dollar spent on “qualifying” purchases.  In particular, qualifying purchases do not currently include costs related to pharmacy items or immunizations. The requester inquired as to the permissibility under federal fraud and abuse laws of expanding the rewards program to include out-of-pocket costs paid in connection with pharmacy products. Rewards points earned on pharmacy products would be available to the general public and subject to the same restrictions (such as expiration dates and point limits) that apply to all other rewards points.

The OIG concluded that although the proposed arrangement would implicate the federal anti-kickback statute and the CMP statutes regarding beneficiary inducements, but would satisfy the requirements of an applicable exception to the definition of remuneration and pose a low risk of fraud and abuse. Specifically, the OIG reasoned that the proposed arrangement would fall under an exception for retailer rewards programs, where:

(1) the rewards consist of coupons, rebates, or other rewards from a retailer;

(2) the rewards are offered or transferred on equal terms available to the general public, regardless of health insurance status; and

(3) the offer or transfer of the rewards is not tied to the provision of other items or services reimbursed in whole or in part by the Medicare or Medicaid programs.

The OIG concluded that the proposed arrangement meets all of these criteria. Furthermore, the OIG concluded that the proposed arrangement would pose a low risk of fraud and abuse under the federal anti-kickback statute for two reasons. First, the risk that the proposed arrangement would drive customers to requester’s supermarkets to purchase federally reimbursable items or services is unlikely. Second, the proposed arrangement would not involve a waiver or reduction in cost-sharing amounts, therefore, the risk of over-utilization or increased costs to the federal health care programs is also small.

Accordingly, the OIG concluded that it would not impose administrative sanctions on the requester in connection with the proposed arrangement. As with all OIG opinions, this conclusion only applies to the proposed arrangement however, it is an informative illustration for those evaluating similar loyalty programs.  If you have any concerns with your compliance with federal fraud and abuse law or the contents of this alert, please contact any member of our health care department, including the authors of this alert.

Photo of Brett Barnett Brett Barnett

Brett is the co-leader of McGuireWoods’ False Claims Act Investigations & Litigation Practice Group. He focuses his practice on representing clients in high-stakes False Claims Act matters, healthcare fraud and abuse investigations, and complex commercial litigation across the country. Brett routinely leads internal…

Brett is the co-leader of McGuireWoods’ False Claims Act Investigations & Litigation Practice Group. He focuses his practice on representing clients in high-stakes False Claims Act matters, healthcare fraud and abuse investigations, and complex commercial litigation across the country. Brett routinely leads internal and government-facing investigations involving the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal and state agencies, and defends clients in civil FCA litigation, often involving parallel proceedings and regulatory scrutiny.

Read more about Brett BarnettEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Timothy Fry Timothy Fry

Tim resolves clients’ thorny compliance and regulatory issues that make or break healthcare transactions and operations. He delivers practical, business-oriented solutions that clear obstacles, close deals, and protect enterprise value.

Read more about Timothy FryEmail
Photo of David Pivnick David Pivnick

David currently serves as co-leader of the firm’s Healthcare Litigation and Enforcement Practice Group. Private equity firms, their platforms, healthcare providers, and health insurance companies regularly look to David for guidance in positioning disputes favorably and litigation avoidance, responding to and addressing Government…

David currently serves as co-leader of the firm’s Healthcare Litigation and Enforcement Practice Group. Private equity firms, their platforms, healthcare providers, and health insurance companies regularly look to David for guidance in positioning disputes favorably and litigation avoidance, responding to and addressing Government investigations, and handling active litigation in a manner that carefully considers the clients’ business objectives.

Read more about David PivnickEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Health Care and Life Sciences
  • Blog:
    The FCA Insider
  • Organization:
    McGuireWoods LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo