by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | May 16, 2025 | Admin, Regulatory
by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.
Shoot the Messenger at Your Own Risk
Shoot the messenger of fraud and abuse at your peril. Providers must take seriously the concerns of employees about possible fraudulent and abusive practices. Most whistleblowers take their concerns to their employers first, especially if they are required to do so by employers’ Compliance Plans. When employers ignore their concerns or, even worse, retaliate against employees or contractors for raising issues in the first place, employees may turn to outside enforcers for assistance in addressing their concerns. Providers must take employees’ allegations seriously whether or not they are valid. Thorough investigations are required in order to demonstrate to employees that there is no problem or that the problem has been corrected.
Private citizens may initiate so-called “whistleblower” or qui tam lawsuits to enforce prohibitions against fraud and abuse in the Medicare, Medicaid, and Medicaid Waiver Programs and other state and federal health care programs, such as VA and Tri-Care.
One of the federal statutes that allows for whistleblower actions is the False Claims Act (FCA). This Act generally prohibits providers from “knowingly” presenting or causing to be presented false or fraudulent claims for payment by the government. Whistleblowers continue to be a major source of information for government enforcers.
Whistleblower Requirements
In order to bring a qui tam action under the FCA, private parties must have direct and independent knowledge of fraud by providers against whom suits are filed. Thus, current or former employees who are familiar with providers’ practices may often initiate whistleblower actions under the FCA. As you can imagine, employees and contractors who are ignored or retaliated against when they bring possible violations to the attention of employers or partners by firing them, for example, are likely to initiate whistleblower suits.
In United States ex rel. Chorches v. American Medical Response [No. 15-3920 (2d Cir. July 27, 2017)], Paul Fabula worked as an emergency medical technician (EMT) for American Medical Response. Fabula realized that his employer fraudulently sought reimbursement from the Medicare Program by falsely claiming that ambulance services were medically necessary when they were not. Specifically, EMTs were asked to falsify electronic Patient Care Reports (PCRs) to make it appear that services were medically necessary. Supervisors printed copies of PCRs, revised them, and directed staff members to sign the revised forms.
In one instance, Fabula provided services with another staff member who prepared the PCR. A supervisor instructed the staff member to fraudulently revise the form. When the staff member refused, the supervisor directed Fabula to sign the revised form. When Fabula refused, he was fired.
Don't Shoot the Messenger
What did Fabula do? Why, of course, he filed a whistleblower suit! The message from this case and numerous others is clear: don’t shoot the proverbial messenger who brings information about possible fraud and abuse violations. Listen up!
Elizabeth Hogue is an attorney in private practice with extensive experience in health care. She represents clients across the U.S., including professional associations, managed care providers, hospitals, long-term care facilities, home health agencies, durable medical equipment companies, and hospices.
©2025 Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. All rights reserved.
No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.
©2025 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com
by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Apr 18, 2024 | Clinical, Regulatory
by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.
Some owners and managers of private duty home care agencies mistakenly think that fraud and abuse prohibitions apply only to services paid for by the Medicare Program. In fact, fraud and abuse prohibitions apply to providers if they accept any state or federal funds, including, but not limited to, Medicaid, Medicaid waiver, VA, and Tri-Care. Many private insurers have adopted the prohibitions on fraud implemented by state and federal programs.
Private duty home care agencies are increasingly in the crosshairs of fraud enforcers if they receive reimbursement from Medicaid and/or Medicaid Waiver Programs. The reason for enhanced scrutiny is that both the federal government, which partially funds state Medicaid and Medicaid Waiver Programs, and state governments that also fund these programs are alarmed about the high costs of them.
Conventional wisdom says that there are big bucks to be saved if fraud and abuse in the Programs are controlled and ultimately eliminated. Conventional wisdom also says that enforcement actions in Medicaid Programs have just scratched the surface. According to this “wisdom,” there are big bucks to be recouped from “low-hanging fruit!”
A recent report from the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services seems to support this perception regarding private duty home care agencies based on the following:
Between 2014 and 2023, at least 34% of fraud convictions in some years were based on private duty home care services. In some years, this percentage was as high as 48%.- In fiscal year 2023, there were 279 criminal convictions related to private duty home care services compared to 66 for registered nurses and 43 for home health agencies.
- Recoveries from private duty home care agencies in 2023 totaled $26.4 million.
- The amount of civil recoveries reached a 4-year high in 2023 and the combined criminal and civil recoveries were $1.2 billion, resulting in a return on investment of $3.35 for every $1 spent.
The return on investment of more than three times the amount spent is perhaps the most important figure of all. With a three to one return, regulators will not hesitate to “beef up” enforcement actions.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF FRAUD AND ABUSE ARE SEVERE WHEN SERVICES ARE PAID FOR BY THE MEDICAID AND OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS!
Personal care private duty agencies, don’t believe the myth that only services paid for by the Medicare Program are subject to fraud and abuse enforcement. The consequences may be devastating, including the loss of businesses. Heads up!
©2024 Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. All rights reserved.
No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.
©2024 This article appeared in The Rowan Report. All rights reserved.
by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Jan 31, 2024 | Admin, Regulatory
by Elizabeth E Hogue, Esq.
Providers may have heard or read about the importance of Fraud and Abuse Compliance Plans in their organizations. Despite the wealth of available information about Compliance Plans, many providers continue to express uncertainty about their value. Here are some of the questions providers commonly ask about Compliance Plans:
Why should we have a Fraud and Abuse Compliance Plan?
First, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has clearly stated that, consistent with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as described below, all providers are now expected to have current Compliance Plans that are fully implemented.
As a practical matter, when providers establish and maintain Compliance Plans, it clearly discourages regulators from pursuing allegations of fraud and abuse violations.
Technically speaking, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines make it clear that establishment and implementation of Compliance Plans is considered to be a mitigating factor. That is, if accusations of criminal conduct are made, the consequences may be substantially less severe because of a properly implemented Compliance Plan.
In addition, providers with Compliance Plans are more likely to avoid fraud and abuse. This is because Plans routinely establish an obligation on the part of every employee to report possible instances of fraud and abuse, and Plans include training for all employees.
Compliance Plans may help to prevent qui tam or so-called “whistleblower” lawsuits by private individuals, rather than by government enforcers, who believe that they have identified instances of fraud and abuse. There are significant incentives to bring these legal actions since whistleblowers receive a share of monies recovered because of their efforts. Some whistleblowers have received millions of dollars. Compliance Plans make it clear that employees have an obligation to bring any potential fraud and abuse issues to the attention of their employers first. Compliance Plans provide a clear path to resolve fraud and abuse issues internally.
In addition, the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires providers to have Compliance Plans. In short, it’s the law!
Finally, the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) requires providers who receive more than $5 million in monies from state Medicaid Programs per year to implement policies and procedures, provide education to employees, and put information in their employee handbooks about fraud and abuse compliance. These requirements can be met through implementation of Fraud and Abuse Compliance Plans.
We don’t receive reimbursement from the Medicare or Medicaid Programs. Do we still need a Compliance Plan?
Statutes and regulations governing fraud and abuse also apply to providers who receive payments from any federal and state healthcare programs, including Medicaid, Medicaid waiver and other federal and state health care programs, such as TriCare and the VA. Many private insurers have followed the federal government’s lead in terms of fraud and abuse enforcement. Therefore, providers that don’t receive reimbursement from the Medicare Program must have compliance plans, too.
We hear that the OIG of the U.S. Department for Health and Human Services has provided guidance for various segments of the healthcare industry regarding Compliance Plans.
- Specifically, the OIG has already published guidance for clinical laboratories, hospitals, home health agencies, hospices, physicians’ practices, third-party billing companies, and home medical equipment companies. Should we just use the model guidance that is applicable to us?
The answer is, “No!” Guidance from the OIG is not a model Compliance Plan. Guidance from the OIG consists of general guidelines and does not constitute valid Compliance Plans. In addition, the OIG has made it clear that Plans must be customized for each organization.
We have read that, before implementing Compliance Plans, providers must conduct expensive internal audits that can take many months to complete. Is this true?
While beginning the compliance process with an extensive internal audit is certainly one way to proceed, it is not the only viable way to work toward compliance. It is equally valid to begin with Compliance Plans that are customized for the organization and include training for all employees about fraud and abuse, and Compliance Plans. Then all staff members can subsequently participate in internal compliance activities, including audits, with a process in place to handle any issues that arise as a result of the audits.
We have all sorts of policies and procedures in our organization. Why do we need something else called a Compliance Plan?
Compliance Plans are specific types of documents that routinely address fraud and abuse issues that providers do not usually cover in internal policies and procedures. In addition, providers may not gain benefits under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines described in paragraph one (1) above if there is no formal document called a Compliance Plan.
We just spent a lot of money to become accredited or reaccredited. Doesn’t certification mean that we are in compliance?
On the contrary, Compliance Plans appropriately address potential fraud and abuse issues. They also include mechanisms for helping to ensure compliance, such as processes for identification and correction of potential problems that are not addressed during the certification process. In other words, organizations may be accredited, but fail to meet applicable compliance standards for fraud and abuse.
Will the fact that our organization has a Compliance Plan make any difference regarding the outcome of fraud and abuse investigations and the imposition of Corporate Integrity Agreements (CIA’s)?
Yes, it may make a considerable difference, based on statements from the OIG. If providers have Compliance Plans in place during investigations that are current and fully implemented, the OIG may be less aggressive in pursuing potential violations. Enforcers are likely to ask for information about Compliance Plans and related policies and procedures. Enforcers are now also likely to ask providers to show them how much money they have spent on fraud and abuse compliance activities!
When the OIG discovers problems with fraud and abuse in organizations, providers are usually asked to develop and implement a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA). The OIG often requires CIA’s to include a process for stringent monitoring by the OIG on a continuous basis. These monitoring activities can be extremely burdensome to providers in terms of both time and money. Providers with valid Compliance Plans may not be asked to develop and implement CIA’s.
Now is the time for all providers to recognize and act upon the need to establish and maintain Compliance Plans. “Working on it” is no longer good enough.
©2024 Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. All rights reserved.
No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.
