Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

DOJ, HHS False Claims Act

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse has become something of a mantra within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Secretary Kennedy has committed to combatting fraud, waste, and abuse within the federal healthcare system. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and HHS have a long history of working together to combat healthcare frauding under the False Claims Act (FCA).

Working Group

In furtherance of their goal to combat healthcare fraud, HHS and DOJ have formed the DOJ-HHS False Claims Act Working Group. The Working Group will include leadership from the HHS Office of General Counsel, CMS Center for Program Integrity, the Office of Counsel for the OIG, and the DOJ Civil Division.

Working Group Priorities to Combat Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

1. HHS will refer potential False Claims Act violations to the DOJ that are in line with the Working Group priority enforcement areas:

  • Medicare Advantage
  • Drug, device, or biologics pricing
    • arrangements for discounts, rebates, service fees, and formulary placement and pricing reporting
  • Barriers to patient access to care
    • violations of network adequacy requirements
  • Kickbacks related to drugs, medical decives, DME, and other products paid for by federal healthcare programs
  • Materially defective medical devices that impact patient safety
  • Manipulation of Electronic Health Records systems to drive inappropriate utilization of Medicare covered products and services

2. The Working Group will maximize collaboration to expedite investigations and identify new leads. They will leverage HHS resources using data mining and assessment of findings.

3. The Working Group will discuss implementing payment suspension according to the CMS Medicare Program Code of Federal Regulations¹

4. The Working Group will discuss whether DOJ will dismiss a whistleblower case under the U.S. Code for Civil actions for False Claims, pursuant to the DOJ Manual for Civil Fraud Litigation²

Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

The Working Group encourages whistleblowers to report violations of the False Claims Act within the priority areas. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement can be reported to HHS at 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477). Similarly, the Working Group encourages healthcare companies to identify and report such violations.

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

²DOJ Dismissal of a Civil Qui Tam Action. When evaluating a recommendation to decline intervention in a qui tam action, attorneys should also consider whether the government’s interests are served, in addition, by seeking dismissal pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A).

¹Suspension of payment. The withholding of payment by a Medicare contractor from a provider or supplier of an approved Medicare payment amount before a determination of the amount of the overpayment exists, or until the resolution of an investigation of a credible allegation of fraud.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

Kristin Rowan has been working at The Rowan Report since 2008. She is the owner and Editor-in-chief of The Rowan Report, the industry’s most trusted source for care at home news, and speaker on Artificial Intelligence and Lone Worker Safety and state and national conferences.

She also runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in content creation, social media management, and event marketing.  Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

©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

 

Shoot the Messenger

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.

Shoot the Messenger

Qui Tam

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. 

False Claims Act

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.  

Here is an example:

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 E. Hogue, Esq.
Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

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

Relief for Providers

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Relief for Providers from Devastating Penalties?

A judge in the Northern District of Texas recently decided that even the minimum penalties mandated under the False Claims Act (FCA) violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause [see U.S. ex rel. Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Tex. (N.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2025)]. The FCA punishes providers for submission of information that is not true in order to get paid by the federal government.

Life Threatening Penalties

The penalties assessed against providers under the FCA may be described as “life threatening.” That is, it may be difficult for providers’ businesses to survive payment of such severe penalties. The minimum penalty increased from $13,946 to $14,308 in 2025. The maximum penalty per claim increased from $27,894 to $28,619.

Ex Post Facto

These increased penalties will be assessed for violations that occurred prior to the change, but that are assessed after they are in effect. These penalties certainly make it clear why it is difficult for providers to survive violations of the FCA.

False Claims

In the Taylor case above, for example, the defendants allegedly submitted false claims as follows:

  • As “incident to” a physician’s care without proper documentation
  • For services by providers who were not eligible to bill the Medicare Program
  • For services performed by medical assistants instead of qualified practitioners
Ex Post Facto

FCA Math Doesn't Add Up

The jury found that one of the defendants, a primary care medical group practice, submitted 21,944 false claims for $2,753,641.86 in actual damages. After trebling the damages as required by the FCA, the Court said it would enter judgement against the defendant for approximately $8 million. The Court acknowledged, however, that penalties under the FCA are fines subject to the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Gravity of Penalties

Grossly Disproportional to the Gravity

The Court then applied the following four factors to decide whether the “fine was grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense” under the Eighth Amendment:

  • The essence of the defendant’s crime and its relationship to other criminal activity
  • Whether the defendant was within the class of people for whom the statute of conviction was principally designed
  • The maximum sentence, including the fine that could have been imposed
  • The nature of the harm resulting from the defendant’s conduct

Fraud...or a Reporting Error?

With regard to the first factor, the Court emphasized that the defendant’s misconduct involved violations of Medicare billing rules, but did not include billing for services that were not provided. In fact, the Court said that even though the defendant violated Medicare billing rules, the misconduct was “closer in gravity to something like a ‘reporting offense.’” There was, said the Court, no evidence that the defendant’s conduct was “related to other criminal or fraudulent activity.

Magnitude of Harm

The Court also focused attention on the fourth factor. The defendant’s harm was certainly significant, but the harm, according to the Court, did not necessitate a penalty “two orders of magnitude greater than the actual financial harm,” especially when the actual damages were substantial, i.e., one hundred times the amount of actual damages. That ratio was “grossly out of alignment with the ratios in other similar cases.” The Court imposed a civil penalty of $8,260,925.58 that represents less than 3% of the statutory minimum.

Final Thoughts

Whether other Courts follow the Taylor case described above remains to be seen, but it is quite clear that providers need relief from the penalties of the FCA.

# # #

Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.
Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

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

Whistleblower Case Impedes Lawsuits

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Whistleblower Action

A United States District Court in Tampa, Florida ruled against a whistleblower action under the False Claims Act (FCA) against her former employer. In 2019, a family care physician filed a whistleblower, or qui tam, action against her employer for increasing the risk adjustment scores of Medicare Advantage patients in order to receive higher payments.

Whistleblower Protection

When an employee or person with information about a company’s wrongdoing, they can file a lawsuit against that company. Whistleblowers are protected under OSHA, EEOC, and several federal and state regulations against retaliation from their employer. A whistleblower, the person who brings evidence of wrongdoing to the court, is called a “relator.”

Whistleblower

Before the Ruling

The False Claims Act is the first and one of the strongest whistleblower laws in the U.S. Under the FCA whistleblower rules, any private citizen can sue any individual, company, or other entity that is defrauding the government and recover damages and penalties on the government’s behalf. Whistleblowers also receive compensation when these suits are settled between 15% and 30% of the total proceeds. As the FCA has expanded since its passing in 1863, the law made it possible for anyone to serve as a whistleblower.

The Ruling

In the case noted above, the court ruled that FCA whistleblowers act as officers of the United States when they sue on behalf of the federal government. The decision reasoned that whistleblowers are appointing themselves as officers of the federal government by bringing these lawsuits.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution states that the President can appoint officers and officials to the government and that they require Senate approval for some of these. Cabinet appointments, judicial appointments, and other high ranking positions are often the subject of news stories during Senate hearings to confirm these appointments.

The court ruled that an FCA whistleblower becomes an officer of the federal government through self-appointment, violating the Appointment Clause of the Constitution. The court further ruled that the False Claims Act in itself is a violation of the Constitution, effectively nullifying the FCA, at least in Florida for now.

Widespread Implications

Any company who has lost a False Claims Act suit may now be able to challenge those rulings, using this case as precedent. However, there are some hoops they would need to jump in order to do so, depending on how this case is interpreted. Ironically, this case states that whistleblowers cannot be officers of the government without appointment, but if that’s true, then all False Claims Act decisions become easier to challenge. 

If this decision stands and is adopted as precedent across the U.S., it could completely nullify the False Claims Act. It may even be considered for a Supreme Court ruling. In 2023, the U.S. government recouped $2.6 billion from FCA suits, nearly $2.3 billion of which were claims brought by whistleblowers.

Care at Home Implications

Medicare and Medicare Advantage are rife with fraudulent claims, “coding intensity“, upcoding, and predatory marketing. In 2024, CMS announced changes to the risk adjustment model in the Risk Adjustment Validation Final Rule after seeing higher-than-expected risk scores. The changes could help CMS recoup up to $4.7 billion in the next ten years. 

MedPAC estimates that Medicare Advantage plans received as much at $88 billion in excess payments in 2024. The lowest share of overpayment reimbursement through the Fraudulent Claims Act would give whistleblowers a combined $13.2 billion. Eliminating the FCA may discourage employees and contractors from reporting fraudulent claims and overbilling through Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

Final Thoughts

A safeguard for people trying to do the right thing, a means to save the federal government billions of dollars that can be spent elsewhere, and ultimately better care for patients are all at risk if the FCA is struck down. A law that has been in place for more than 150 years should carry more weight than the ruling of one district court who applies a new definition to a long-standing term. 

Whistleblowers and the federal government have generally been considered co-defendants in these suits. Two parties with separate interests in the same suit, acting independently, not a joint case like a class action suit would be. I anticipate an appeal on this decision and hopefully a panel of judges who better understand the necessity of the False Claims Act and the Whistleblower provisions.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

Kristin Rowan has been working at The Rowan Report since 2008. She is the owner and Editor-in-chief of The Rowan Report, the industry’s most trusted source for care at home news .She also has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in content creation, social media management, and event marketing.  Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

©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

 

HHA to pay Nearly $4 Million after False Claims Act Violations

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

False Claims Act Violations

According to allegations in U.S. es rel. Jones v Intrepid U.S.A. Healthcare Inc. and U.S. es rel. Rigney v Intrepid U.S.A. Inc., Intrepid U.S.A. Inc. (Intrepid) violated the False Claims Act multiple times over five years.

Intrepid is based in Texas and includes more than 80 Personal Care, Home Health, Palliative Care, and Hospice Care agencies across 18 states. Intrepid describes their services as “concierge medical home healthcare, hospice at home, private duty home care, and independent living support.”

Whistleblowers

Whistleblowers filed Civil cases against Intrepid under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act. A former travel nurse and a former Director of Quality and Improvement for Intrepid filed the first case. A former Director of Clinical Excellence and Integrity and a former Regional Manager of Clinical Excellence for Intrepid filed the second. Under the False Claims Act, a private party can file an action against a company on behalf of the United States. Should there be a settlement or resolution, the filing party(ies) receive a portion of any recovery.

Allegations

Each of the cases addresses different lines of business for Intrepid. The first case alleges that Intrepid knowingly submitted home healthcare Medicare claims for patients who did not qualify for the home healthcare benefit, or where services did not qualify for reimbursement. The second case alleges that Intrepid knowlingly submitted Medicare claims for patience who did not qualify for the hospice benefit.

More Allegations

Additionally, the United States claims that from 2016 to 2021, Intrepid submitted claims for services that were not reasonable or medically necessary, services provided by untrained staff, and services that were never provided at all. Separately, the United States alleges that Intrepid admitted patients who were ineligible for hospice benefits because they were not terminally ill and continued providing services to patients who should have been discharged because they no longer met the requirements to qualify for the hospice benefits.

Settlement

The Justice Department’s Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Kentucky and U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota worked together to investigate and resolve these matters. According to the Department of Justice report, no liability or admission of guilt was determined and the settlement resolved allegations only.

Repeat Offender

It seems this is not the first run-in with the law that Intrepid U.S.A. has faced.

2014: a class action suit alleged unpaid wages.

2019: Intrepid settled a class action suit where employees alleged unpaid overtime.

2021: William Buchanan filed a civil right – employment discrimination suit against Intrepid in Indiana.

Intrepid in Minnesota and North Carolina faced similar Medicare fraud charges as well.

Intrepid USA False Claims Act

Not Alone

Intrepid U.S.A. Inc. is not the only home health or hospice agency to face these types of allegations.

Evolution Health LLC

In July, 2024, Guardian Health Care, Inc., Gem City Home Care LLC, and Care Connection of Cincinnati LLC, together with their parent company Evolution Health LLC, settled a False Claims Act case in which the Companies were accused of providing illegal kickbacks to ALFs and physicians in exchange for referrals. That settlement totaled almost $4.5 million dollars.

Halo Home Healthcare

Similarly, in June, 2024, the former owner of Halo Home Healthcare pled guilty to billing more than $8.5 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans Affairs from 2015 to 2021. Halo Home Healthcare hired more than 50 employees with criminal backgrounds that should have excluded them from providing home health services, one of whom was charged with a quadruple murder during their employment at Halo. The former owner also hid her ownership of the company because she had been convicted in 2013 of passing forged and fraudulent prescriptions for oxycodone and hydrocodone.

Atlantic Home Health Care

In January, 2024, Atlantic Home Health Care was accused of falsely billing the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. The claim alleges Atlantic charged for in-home nursing and personal care when employees weren’t providing services and paying kickbacks for patient referrals. The Arizona-based company paid almost $10 million to resolve that case.

Speak Up, Speak Out

Fraudulent billing, up-coding, and other illegal acts from home health and hospice agencies put additional strain on the already stretched CMS budget for reimbursement. The millions of dollars recovered just this calendar year is just a portion of fraudulent claims filed. Whistleblower laws protect employees from retaliation by their employers. Fraudulent practices that send money directly to an agency without benefitting a patient hurts the whole industry. The only way the Department of Justice can address and stop these billing practices and keep that money going directly to patient care is with the help of whistleblowers.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

Kristin Rowan has been working at Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report since 2008. She has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in event planning, sales, and marketing strategy. She has recently taken on the role of Editor of The Rowan Report and will add her voice to current Home Care topics as well as marketing tips for home care agencies. Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

Kickbacks for Referrals are Costly…and Illegal

by Elizabeth E Hogue, Esq.

Kickback on Kickbacks

Three home health agencies and their parent company in Cincinnati, Ohio, must pay $4,496,330 to resolve alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act by providing kickbacks to assisted living facilities in exchange for referrals of Medicare patients. The settlement resolves allegations that, between 2013 and 2022, the companies provided lease payments and other valuable benefits; including wellness health services, sports tickets, and meals; to numerous ALFs and their residents. The companies then billed Medicare for the services provided to patients referred by the ALFs.

Referrals from ALFs

Getting more referrals from ALF’s and retirement communities seems to be a crucial piece of the puzzle for all types of providers. As the number of years in which they have been in business increases, ALF’s and retirement communities are more eager to assist their residents to “age in place.” This means that they often view availability of services from post-acute providers as essential to allow them to achieve this goal. 

While providers compete aggressively in the marketplace, they cannot, however, lose sight of the fact that the healthcare industry is highly regulated. With ever-increasing emphasis on fraud and abuse compliance, providers cannot afford to violate the law.

Kickbacks for Referrals

How can providers get more referrals from ALF’S and retirement communities? What are the potential legal pitfalls that providers must avoid? 

The most effective way to maximize referrals from these sources may be to take a multi-pronged approach that includes:

Assigning at least one coordinator/liaison to each referral source on at least a part-time basis

Use of coordinators/liaisons at ALF’s and retirement communities raises issues related to violation of the federal anti-kickback statute. This statute generally prohibits providers from either offering to give or actually giving anything to referral sources in order to induce referrals. Consequently, liaisons and coordinators must be scrupulous about avoiding the provision of free services to ALF’s and retirement communities and/or their residents. Possible violations include “staffing” an office with an RN who responds to requests from residents in their apartments or has “office hours” to address health conditions of residents.

Renting space for coordinators/liaisons to occupy so that providers have a frequent or continuous presence on the premises of referral sources to better serve patients

Renting space from referral sources also involves potential kickbacks, so providers must meet the requirements of the space rental exception or safe harbor. In order to do so, providers must enter into a written lease with the facility/community for a term of least one year. The lease must include the number of square feet providers are renting. Rent must be set in advance at fair market value and cannot take into account either the volume or value of referrals received. Finally, providers may rent only the amount of space that is commercially reasonable or that they actually need.  

The OIG has provided significant guidance about these requirements, which providers must master before they establish these types of relationships. Common pitfalls for providers is insistence by ALFs that providers must rent an entire apartment, whether or not they need it, and must pay an amount equal to the residents’ monthly rent, which includes food and other services. 

Entering into Preferred Provider Agreements

Preferred Provider Agreements may be verbal or in writing. There may be significant value in reducing these preferred provider relationships to writing. These types of relationships raise issues related to patients’ right to freedom of choice of providers. The common law or court decisions require providers of all types to honor patients’ right to freedom of choice. There are also federal statutes that guarantee this right to Medicare and Medicaid patients. In addition, states sometimes address these issues in applicable statutes and regulations. For this reason, providers should not attempt to use standard or “sample” Agreements, but must adhere to requirements in all of the states in which they use these types of Agreements.

Providing a full range of screenings and educational events for and about common chronic illnesses or community awareness activities

ALF’s and retirement communities often ask providers to conduct educational events and basic screenings for common chronic conditions. Generally, providers may do so if they walk a relatively fine line between engaging in community awareness activities and providing free skilled services to residents that exceed $15.00 in value at a time. At a minimum, such activities must be conducted consistent with a detailed policy and procedure that governs the provision of such services, so that providers do not violate the anti-kickback statute.

No kickbacks for referrals

Establishing relationships with ALF’s and retirement communities may result in numerous referrals to post-acute providers. Such relationships should be based on standard documents and comprehensive policies, as described above, in order to ensure compliance. Legal representation is essential for the development and implementation of these documents due to the complexity of the issues involved. 

Enforcement actions like those described above are avoidable.

Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.
Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

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.

©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.

Ohio HHA Violated Anti-Kickback Statute

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Office of Public Affairs

July 1, 2024 — Guardian Health Care Inc., Gem City Home Care LLC and Care Connection of Cincinnati LLC, home health agencies operating in Texas, Ohio and Indiana, along with their owner Evolution Health LLC (together, the Companies), have agreed to pay $4,496,330 to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by knowingly providing illegal kickbacks to assisted living facilities and physicians in exchange for Medicare referrals.

This settlement resolves allegations that, from 2013 to 2022, Guardian Health Care, Gem City Home Care and Care Connection of Cincinnati provided lease payments and other valuable benefits, including wellness health services, sports tickets and meals, to numerous assisted living facilities and their residents, as well as certain health care providers, in exchange for referrals of Medicare beneficiaries. The home health agencies then billed Medicare for the home health services they provided to the referred patients.

The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits the provision of remuneration with the intent to induce referrals of government health care program business. The Anti-Kickback Statute is intended to ensure that medical providers’ judgments are not compromised by improper financial incentives. Claims that are knowingly submitted in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute are ineligible for payment and can violate the False Claims Act.

“It is imperative to ensure that improper financial incentives play no role in decisions regarding patient care,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “Today’s resolution demonstrates the department’s commitment to protecting the integrity of federal health care programs and the medical treatment received by their beneficiaries.”

The Companies received credit under the department’s guidelines for taking disclosure, cooperation and remediation into account in False Claims Act cases. Among other actions, the Companies disclosed the conduct to the government, identified the individuals involved and assisted in the determination of losses caused to Medicare.

The investigation and resolution of this matter illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement can be reported to the Department of Health and Human Services at 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477).

Trial Attorney Elizabeth A. Strawn of the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Brandi Stewart for the Southern District of Ohio handled the matter.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only. And there has been no determination of liability.