Table of Contents
Ready to See Results?
From strategy through execution, Atlantic Health Strategies integrates compliance, operations, and growth into durable, measurable results. Let’s put our expertise to work for your organization.
What Advisory Opinion 26-18 actually says, and the exact limit of its protection
A favorable HHS-OIG advisory opinion on healthcare referral services means the Office of Inspector General will not impose administrative sanctions on the specific requestor for the specific arrangement reviewed. It does not immunize anyone else, and it does not touch the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act, which the Department of Justice enforces separately. For behavioral health operators building admissions networks, placement services, or MSO-run referral platforms, that distinction is the whole ball game.
On September 9, 2026, OIG posted Advisory Opinion 26-18. The opinion addresses a proposed referral service that would connect patients needing specialized ear and hearing care with hearing professionals who paid a set membership fee to participate. OIG concluded the arrangement would not generate prohibited remuneration under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute because it satisfies all conditions of the safe harbor for referral services at 42 C.F.R. § 1001.952(f).
The facts matter. OIG flagged that the arrangement works because fees are cost-based and assessed equally across participants, patients receive transparent disclosures, and fees have no connection to the volume or value of referrals. Operators who want the same comfort letter effect in their own files need to match those facts, not approximate them.
Why AKS analysis is only half the problem for SUD and behavioral health
Here is the gap almost no competitor alert names clearly. OIG advisory opinions interpret the Anti-Kickback Statute at 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b) and related Civil Monetary Penalties authorities. They do not interpret EKRA. EKRA is part of the U.S. Criminal Code, which is only enforceable by the U.S. Department of Justice.
EKRA, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 220, was enacted in October 2018 as part of the SUPPORT Act to attack patient brokering in addiction treatment. It prohibits knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, paying or offering any remuneration to induce a referral of an individual to, or in exchange for an individual using the services of, a recovery home, clinical treatment facility, or laboratory if payable by a commercial or government funded health care program. That reaches commercial payers, which the AKS does not.
The penalties are serious. Violation of EKRA is a felony punishable by a maximum fine of $200,000, prison for up to 10 years, or both, for each occurrence. DOJ has been using it. Owners of two South Florida addiction treatment facilities were convicted in a $112 million scheme involving EKRA violations, and the DOJ Sober Homes Initiative led to arrests of 10 defendants involving EKRA violations. If you run a residential facility, a withdrawal management program, PHP, or IOP that depends on a third-party admissions pipeline, the OIG opinion alone will not save you.
The 42 C.F.R. § 1001.952(f) checklist, translated for a BH admissions network
The referral services safe harbor has clear conditions. In an earlier OIG advisory opinion applying the same regulation, OIG explained that safe harbor protection is afforded only to those arrangements that precisely meet all of the conditions set forth in the safe harbor. Precisely. Not mostly.
For a behavioral health operator or MSO running a placement or referral service, that means your contracts, disclosures, and fee methodology should satisfy each of these elements before you claim comfort from Advisory Opinion 26-18:
- Open participation. The referral service cannot exclude participants who meet published qualifications.
- Uniform, cost-based fees. Fees are assessed equally across participants and reflect only the cost of operating the service, with no link to the volume or value of federal healthcare program referrals.
- Patient disclosures. Patients get written and oral disclosures about how the service picks participants, that participants pay fees, and the basis for selection.
- No restrictions on care. The service does not dictate clinical protocols or how participants deliver care.
- Documented records. You keep records of disclosures given and participant fees collected.
Where I see operators go wrong is on the fee structure. Any per-admission, per-inquiry, per-insured-life, or tiered-geography pricing blows up the safe harbor. OIG recently issued an unfavorable opinion where subscription fees varied based on geography and the number of agency locations, meaning similarly situated providers could pay different amounts and were not limited to the vendor’s actual cost of operating the platform. Same regulation, opposite outcome, because the facts were different.
Diligence red flags for PE buyers and MSOs evaluating a referral-dependent target
If you are underwriting a behavioral health platform whose admissions come through a call center, a third-party marketing company, or an affiliated referral entity, Advisory Opinion 26-18 should sharpen your diligence, not relax it. The OIG opinion universe is small and specific. OIG’s browsable advisory opinion database shows 483 total advisory opinions on file as of this writing, and only a handful each year address referral services directly. A favorable opinion in a hearing-care fact pattern does not transfer automatically to SUD or mental health admissions.
What I look at on an operational audit for a buyer:
- Marketing contracts. Any commission, bonus, or percentage tied to referrals, admissions, or billed revenue. Under EKRA, paying a marketing representative a commission tied to patient referrals, even a single private-pay referral, can constitute a federal crime.
- Call center and placement agreements. Who owns the lead, who pays whom, and on what basis.
- State patient-brokering exposure. Florida, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Tennessee all have statutes tougher than federal law in places. A Florida AG patient-brokering charge can follow a transaction even when AKS is clean.
- Payer-steerage arrangements. Narrow network and preferred-provider structures with managed care organizations, where fee flow and in-kind value can look like remuneration.
- Documentation and medical necessity. Referrals mean nothing if the chart does not justify the level of care billed. ASAM Criteria 4th Edition language in treatment plans, LOCUS scoring for mental health, and payer-specific definitions all have to line up.
As one commentator put it after a recent OIG opinion involving MSO structures, “advisory opinions are binding only on the requesting party”. Buyers who treat a favorable opinion as a blanket defense for the target’s own practices will inherit the enforcement risk at close.
Frequently asked questions
Does an HHS-OIG favorable advisory opinion protect behavioral health operators who copy the arrangement?
No. The opinion binds only the requestor on the specific facts submitted. Operators can use it as persuasive guidance, but they get protection only if their own arrangement actually meets every element of the referral services safe harbor at 42 C.F.R. § 1001.952(f), and they should document that analysis in their compliance program file.
How does EKRA change the analysis when the OIG opinion only addresses AKS?
EKRA reaches commercial-pay referrals to recovery homes, clinical treatment facilities, and clinical laboratories, which AKS does not. OIG opinions do not interpret EKRA, and DOJ enforces it criminally. A referral payment can satisfy an AKS safe harbor and still be an EKRA felony, especially commission-based marketing arrangements in SUD treatment.
Can we pay a referral service on a per-inquiry or per-admission basis after this opinion?
No, if you want safe harbor protection. The regulation requires fees that are assessed equally, cost-based, and unrelated to the volume or value of referrals. Per-inquiry or per-admission pricing falls outside that structure and also triggers EKRA scrutiny for SUD and lab referrals.
What due diligence should PE buyers run on a target’s referral and marketing contracts in light of this guidance?
Pull every marketing, call center, placement, lead-gen, and affiliate contract. Map the fee methodology to both 42 C.F.R. § 1001.952(f) and 18 U.S.C. § 220. Review state patient-brokering statutes in every state the target operates. Audit a sample of charts to confirm medical necessity and level of care documentation supports the admissions that referral partners are generating.
How do state patient-brokering statutes interact with the OIG opinion?
They operate independently. Florida’s Patient Brokering Act, New Jersey’s Health Care Facilities Planning Act provisions, and the Massachusetts anti-kickback law each define prohibited referral conduct in state terms. A favorable federal advisory opinion does not preempt state enforcement, and state Medicaid Fraud Control Units and state attorneys general have been active in behavioral health patient brokering cases for years.
References
- HHS-OIG Advisory Opinions database (browse)
- Barnes & Thornburg: HHS-OIG Issues Favorable Advisory Opinion Regarding Healthcare Referral Service (AO 26-18)
- Thompson Hine: DOJ Announces First Criminal Prosecution Under EKRA
- Davis Wright Tremaine: First Guilty Plea Under the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act
- Greenberg Traurig: EKRA 2021 Highlights
- Barnes & Thornburg: HHS-OIG Unfavorable Opinion on Pay-to-Play Referral Software Platform
- Morgan Lewis: Favorable OIG Advisory Opinion Underscores Ongoing Scrutiny of Ancillary Service Referrals
- HHS-OIG Advisory Opinion 09-16 (referral services safe harbor analysis)
- EKRA Violations and Federal Patient Brokering overview