State v. Harden

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed a decision declaring Florida's Medicaid anti-kickback statute unconstitutional. The court held that the statute was impliedly conflict-preempted by the federal Medicaid anti-kickback law because Florida law lacked the federal employee-payment safe harbor and imposed a lower mens rea requirement. The court concluded that Florida's statute criminalized conduct that federal law intended to protect from prosecution.

Holdings

1. Section 409.920(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2000), is impliedly conflict-preempted because it criminalizes conduct that federal law specifically intended to protect and thereby presents an obstacle to accomplishment of the purposes and objectives of the federal Medicaid anti-kickback statute.
2. The alleged per-head payment arrangement involved protected employer-employee payments for the provision of covered items or services and was shielded from criminal prosecution under the federal anti-kickback statute, assuming the recipients were bona fide employees.
3. The court did not reach the appellees' First Amendment and vagueness challenges because its conclusion that the statute was preempted was dispositive.

Questions Presented

1. Whether section 409.920(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2000), is impliedly preempted by the federal Medicaid anti-kickback statute and related safe-harbor regulations.
2. Whether the employee safe harbor under federal law protects commission-based or per-head payments made by an employer to bona fide employees for soliciting and transporting Medicaid patients for covered services.
3. Whether the Florida anti-kickback statute violates the First Amendment or is unconstitutionally vague as applied.

Disposition

affirmed