Guide

Subleasing from a colleague: fair-market rent or an AKS problem

Summary

Yes — rent that departs from fair market value between two parties who refer patients to each other can implicate the Anti-Kickback Statute, because a below-market lease functions as an in-kind benefit tied to the referral relationship even without cash changing hands. The same concern runs in reverse too: above-market rent paid to a referral source is equally exposed. A sublease priced at fair market value, documented as such, and unconnected to referral volume is the route regulators recognize.

By Gale Editorial · Updated 2026-07-27. Every figure cited to a dated source. How we write.

Can below-market rent from a referral source be a kickback?

Yes — rent that departs from fair market value between two parties who refer patients to each other can implicate the Anti-Kickback Statute, because a below-market lease functions as an in-kind benefit tied to the referral relationship even without cash changing hands, and the statute reaches remuneration in any form, not only direct payments. The same concern runs in the other direction too: paying above-market rent to a referral source is just as exposed as paying below it, since either direction moves value outside what the space itself is actually worth.

This is a legal-structure question, not a moral one about the colleague involved — a sublease priced at fair market value, documented as such, and unconnected to referral volume is the route regulators recognize. Subleasing is one of several office options for a solo clinician weighing overhead against control, and it's the one option that carries this particular compliance question.

Why rent counts as remuneration in this analysis

The Anti-Kickback Statute defines remuneration broadly enough to include anything of value, so a landlord-tenant relationship between two people who also refer patients to each other draws exactly the same scrutiny a cash payment would if the rent charged doesn't match what an unrelated third party would pay for the same space. The referral relationship is what triggers the analysis in the first place — two unrelated businesses can set whatever rent they want between themselves without implicating the statute at all, since there's no referral stream a discounted or inflated rent could be rewarding.

That distinction is the whole reason this question is worth asking before signing rather than after: the same sublease terms that would be a completely unremarkable business decision between strangers become a compliance question the moment the two parties involved also send each other patients.

What 'fair market value' actually has to show

Fair market value in this context means what an unrelated party would pay for equivalent space in the same market, not what feels fair between two colleagues splitting a suite informally, and that number generally needs to be documented rather than assumed. An independent, arm's-length appraisal or a comparison to comparable local commercial leases is the kind of evidence that holds up if the arrangement is ever questioned later, and it costs far less upfront than defending an undocumented number after the fact.

Two features of the rent itself matter beyond the number: whether it's set in advance for the term of the lease rather than adjusted informally, and whether it's tied in any way to the volume or value of referrals between the two parties. The specific written-lease conditions an arrangement needs to satisfy a formal safe harbor are covered in depth in safe harbors you actually touch; this page's job is the narrower question of whether the concern is real in the first place.

Where Stark adds a second layer

If one of the two parties involved is a physician and any portion of the arrangement touches a designated health service billed to Medicare or Medicaid, the physician self-referral law can apply alongside the Anti-Kickback Statute, and its compensation rules are stricter and don't turn on intent the way an Anti-Kickback Statute analysis often does. A solo behavioral health practice subleasing from a psychiatrist or another physician colleague is exactly the kind of arrangement where both statutes deserve a look, not just the one that comes to mind first.

Because the two laws overlap but aren't identical, an arrangement that clears one framework's plain-language test isn't automatically clear of the other, which is a good part of why a lease between two people who refer to each other is one of the more common triggers for bringing in healthcare counsel rather than handling it as a routine real-estate negotiation.

Due diligence before signing

Before finalizing a financial arrangement with a referral source, checking that neither party appears on the federal exclusion lists is a low-cost step many solo practices skip entirely — the OIG maintains a public exclusion list, and no federal program payment may be made for items or services furnished by an excluded individual or entity, which matters well beyond the lease itself if either party bills Medicare or Medicaid 1Ref 1HHS Office of Inspector General (2026).Exclusions Program.That OIG excludes individuals/entities from federal health programs and that no federal program payment may be made for services from an excluded person, relevant to screening a referral-source counterparty before signing.. SAM.gov is the federal government's complementary exclusion and debarment database, and checking both lists takes only a few minutes against either party's name 2Ref 2U.S. General Services Administration (2026).SAM.gov.That SAM.gov is the federal exclusion/debarment database complementing the OIG LEIE, relevant to two-database due-diligence screening before entering a lease with a referral source..

This screening step isn't about suspecting the colleague of anything; it's a standard due-diligence habit worth applying to any financial arrangement with a referral source, the same way credentialing reviewers screen new hires against the same lists before onboarding them.

What else a sublease from a colleague needs to cover

A sublease agreement between two clinicians needs to address more than rent: who is responsible for the space's accessibility obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, since Title III applies to a private healthcare office as a public accommodation regardless of which party technically holds the master lease 3Ref 3U.S. Department of Justice (2026).The Americans with Disabilities Act.That Title III of the ADA applies to a private healthcare office as a public accommodation regardless of which party holds the master lease.; how liability insurance covers each party's patients if something happens in a shared waiting room; and where the data and physical boundary sits between two separate practices sharing one suite. A shared front desk or waiting area in particular raises a separate question about which party's staff, if either, can see or overhear information belonging to the other party's patients.

Beyond the AKS question, the clinical lease carries its own set of clauses worth reading closely, and which lease clauses bite clinical tenants covers those in more depth. A lighter version of the same fair-market-value question comes up with a timeshare arrangement too — renting tuesdays instead of a full sublease raises a proportionally smaller but real version of the same analysis.

If the arrangement is already in place and something looks off

A practice that discovers, after the fact, that an existing sublease might not hold up — rent that was never benchmarked, a handshake deal with no lease document, terms that shifted with referral volume — has a formal path for addressing it: OIG's self-disclosure protocol lets a provider proactively report conduct that could implicate federal health program fraud laws, with defined expectations for what a submission needs to contain 4Ref 4HHS Office of Inspector General (2026).Health Care Fraud Self-Disclosure Protocol.That OIG maintains a self-disclosure protocol for a provider who discovers an arrangement that could implicate federal health program fraud laws, and what a submission must contain.. Self-disclosure is generally a materially better position than waiting for the arrangement to surface in an audit or a whistleblower complaint, and it's a conversation to have with healthcare counsel before submitting anything, not after.

Fixing the arrangement going forward — repricing to a documented fair-market rate, papering an actual lease, decoupling any tie to referral volume — is worth doing regardless of whether self-disclosure ends up being the right call for what happened in the past. Building a referral flow without buying it, independent of any shared real estate or financial arrangement, is the lower-risk parallel path worth pursuing regardless of how the lease question resolves.

Common questions

It reaches arrangements connected to federal healthcare program business broadly, not Medicare and Medicaid patients specifically. A purely private-pay arrangement with no federal program involvement at all sits outside the statute's reach, though state fraud-and-abuse laws may still apply in that situation and are worth checking separately with counsel.

A written lease with a defined term and a fixed, appraised rent is the standard that holds up if questioned. An undocumented handshake arrangement is much harder to defend as fair market value after the fact, even if the rent charged was actually reasonable.

The Anti-Kickback Statute reaches financial arrangements among a broad range of participants in federal healthcare programs, not physicians alone, so a non-physician referral source is still squarely within its reach. Stark specifically is narrower and physician-focused, so which statute actually applies to a given arrangement depends on who's involved.

Practices vary, but a fixed term with a defined renewal point, re-appraised at each renewal rather than adjusted informally mid-term, is a common structure worth discussing with counsel when the lease is first drafted, not after a concern surfaces down the road.

This is one of the clearer triggers for bringing in healthcare counsel specifically, given how closely the Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark overlap in exactly this kind of arrangement. A general real-estate attorney may not catch the referral-relationship analysis a healthcare-specific review would, which is the whole point of asking first.

Run your practice on Gale

The software is free. Gale earns one flat 3.5% all-in per paid transaction — only on transactions that actually pay. No subscription, no setup fee, no network cut.

Start or manage a practice →

References

1.HHS Office of Inspector General (2026). Exclusions Program. HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG). link ✓That OIG excludes individuals/entities from federal health programs and that no federal program payment may be made for services from an excluded person, relevant to screening a referral-source counterparty before signing.
2.U.S. General Services Administration (2026). SAM.gov. U.S. General Services Administration. linkThat SAM.gov is the federal exclusion/debarment database complementing the OIG LEIE, relevant to two-database due-diligence screening before entering a lease with a referral source.
3.U.S. Department of Justice (2026). The Americans with Disabilities Act. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. link ✓That Title III of the ADA applies to a private healthcare office as a public accommodation regardless of which party holds the master lease.
4.HHS Office of Inspector General (2026). Health Care Fraud Self-Disclosure Protocol. HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG). link ✓That OIG maintains a self-disclosure protocol for a provider who discovers an arrangement that could implicate federal health program fraud laws, and what a submission must contain.

https://www.gale.care/for-providers/spc-sublease-aks-trap · 4 sources. Competitor details are cited to dated public sources and maintained as they change; figures are estimates, not commitments. Synthetic demonstration.

← Back to for providers